“Forensic Clinical Psychology as an Emerging ... - SRM University

in mentally retarded individuals, complicating diagnostic accuracy (Glick and Zigler, 1995) noted
that psychiatric in-patients with mental retardation demonstrated a significantly higher rate of
expressing their symptoms actively, outwardly, and aggressively in comparison to inpatients without
mental retardation. Individuals presenting with both mental retardation and psychiatric disorder
are more likely to incur diagnoses that reflect aggressive and antisocial behavior than psychiatric
patients of normal intelligence. Hence thorough diagnostic evaluation in legal situations where
there is any suspicion of mental retardation is herded (Kinsler et al., 2004)
Criminal Responsibility: Individuals with mental retardation suffer at every stage in the criminal
process from the moment of arrest through the trial process. They are at a disadvantage because of
the social defects associated their disability. When first arrested, individuals with mental retardation
may do not realize the gravity of the charges and simply know that they are in trouble and afraid,
and blurt out confessions. The mentally retarded individual may not be aware of the need for legal
counsel.
Competence to Stand Trial: Competence to stand trial is a complicated issue with these mentally
retarded defendants. If a defendant sufficiently presents the ability to consult lawyer with
a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and factual understanding of the processing
against him, it implies that the individual is able to utilize knowledge to assist their lawyers and
thus participate defense. Many mentally retarded defendants are unable to weigh options
and make reasonable decisions regarding how to handle the case. The forensic clinician has to
conduct a thorough, assessment and ask questions to evoke recitation of facts and also assesses a
defendant’s rational understanding by asking. Criminal responsibility is ultimately determined by
the court; however, forensic evaluators may offer clinical opinions regarding the extent to which
mental retardation might affect a defendant’s ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of the crime
committed. As committed mental retardation itself is not an adequate defense against a criminal
act, yet, forensic evaluators can play a vital role by documenting specific deficits as they pertain to
criminal offenses committed by mentally retarded defendants.
A forensic report should address three main issues. First, a thorough review of the individual’s
history with special attention paid to any signs of cognitive deficits or developmental delays noted
prior to age 18. Second, an intelligence test should be used to assess the current intellectual deficits.
A recent survey of forensic experts conducted by Lally (2003), the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales
– Third Edition (WAIS-III) was rated as a “recommended” or “acceptable” instrument to evaluate
issues of competency and mental state at the time of offense. Third, the evaluation should include
a measure of adaptive functioning, of which several are routinely used (e.g., Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Scales). Such instruments are typically completed by interviewing caregivers or relatives,
which enables to rate the individual on a variety of functional domains. These ratings include some
assessment of social functioning, communication skills, and daily living/self-care tasks. When
mental retardation has been established historically or through current evaluation, the evaluator
must explore specific deficits associated they relate to the legal question. If an individual meet the
criteria for diagnosis of mental retardation and deficits in his “factual” and “rational” understanding