09.02.2014 Views

COSIG CONFERENCE BROCHURE.pdf - Drexel University College ...

COSIG CONFERENCE BROCHURE.pdf - Drexel University College ...

COSIG CONFERENCE BROCHURE.pdf - Drexel University College ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>COSIG</strong> Co-Occurring Disorders Conference, Hershey PA, May 15-17, 2006<br />

Current Standards<br />

• 1. Each state determines standards<br />

governing criminal trials (see<br />

McNaghten).<br />

• 2. Dujsky vs. U.S. applies in federal<br />

cases:<br />

– Whether defendant has sufficient present<br />

ability to consult lawyer with reasonable<br />

degree of rational understanding, and<br />

whether defendant has a rational as well<br />

as a factual understanding of the<br />

proceedings against the defendant.<br />

Cont’d<br />

• 3. Current standards understood in the<br />

context of the following principles:<br />

– Understand the nature of the charges.<br />

– Understand the nature and purpose of the<br />

court proceedings.<br />

– Have a rational as well as a factual<br />

understanding of the proceedings.<br />

Should the clinician offer an opinion on<br />

a person’s competency to stand trial?<br />

• 1) Two opinions on how the clinician should<br />

present information re: competence:<br />

– A. Should not offer an opinion and provide only raw<br />

data; note that competence is not a clinical decision;<br />

and assert no expertise in legal areas.<br />

– B. As an arm of the court they should offer an opinion<br />

to be useful to the court; legitimate role of clinician;<br />

and recognizing bias in assessment & evaluation<br />

minimizes its effect.<br />

2.) When pressed to give an<br />

opinion:<br />

• Cave in and give an opinion<br />

• Can protest that clinicians are not experts<br />

in legal matters<br />

• Note: clinician is not acting in traditional<br />

helping relationship and providing<br />

information to a third party may or may not<br />

be in the best interests of the person they<br />

are evaluating.<br />

3.) Why you might abstain:<br />

• Distortion of the clinician/patient relationship<br />

• Court may use clinicians skills to the person’s<br />

detriment<br />

• The person could be seduced into confiding<br />

• The clinician is employed by a third party and<br />

not employed to provide treatment to the<br />

individual<br />

• Clinicians to not want to be viewed as an agent<br />

of social control.<br />

4.) Why you might opine:<br />

• Forensic evaluation can protect the<br />

fairness function of the courts.<br />

– Clinician discomfort is not a reason to desist.<br />

• Clinicians should help courts as an<br />

obligation to society.<br />

– The clinician must grapple with the reality of<br />

ethical dilemmas.<br />

5

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!