Psychology and Law Test 2

Establishing guilt

The court must look for beyond reasonable doubt of mens rea

Mens rea

Criminal intent

Actus reus

Wrongful deed

Being unfit to stand trial

Inability to conduct a defense at any stage of court proceedings due to a mental disorder (e.g., being in a schizophrenia episode)

Fitness standards Bill C-30

Must be able to understand the nature/object of proceedings, understand possible consequences of proceedings, and communicate with the counsel

Historical fitness standards

Determines whether the defendant has intentionality, whether the defendant can plead guilty, and has sufficient cognitive capacity to understand proceedings

Who can assess fitness to stand trial?

Only medical practitioners (physicians) can, while psychologists may assist in testing and assessment, often using the Fitness Interview Test revised

Fitness Interview Test Revised (FIT-R)

Has 3 sections to assess ability to understand nature/object of proceedings, possible consequences, and communication; scored qualitatively alongside potential diagnosis

Unfit defendants

Tend to be single, unemployed, living alone, older WOC, diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, less likely to have a violent charge

Halting proceedings for fitness

Unfit defendants may be detained or conditionally charged for up to 3 months for fitness review; case is dropped if determined to unlikely become fit, not a threat to the public, and in the interest of proper justice

Restoring fitness

Goal is to get the defendant fit for trial using psychological supports and medication (most common); courts will take into account the individual capacity of comprehension

Insanity defense

Defendant must be suffering from a defect of reason, must not know the nature/quality of act they were performing, must not know that what they were doing is wrong

Not criminally responsible because of mental disorder (NCRMD)

Defendant should receive an absolute discharge unless they pose a threat to society

Criminal lunatics act

Created following James Hadfield case, who suffered a brain injury through combat and attempted assassination of King George; was successfully argued that he was out of touch with reality

Assessing insanity

Requires psychiatric assessment using scales like the R-CRAS; clinician takes all info into account and uses it as a basis for a decision regarding mental status and criminal responsibility

Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS)

Assesses reliability, organicity, psychopathology, cognitive control, behavioral control; has not cut-off score, evaluated qualitatively

Dispositions for NCRMD

Can either get absolute discharge, conditional discharge, or be sent to a psychiatric facility

Review boards for NCRMD

Will consider charges, trial transcript, criminal history, risk assessment, clinical history, psychological testing, and hospital recommendation; time person is held is capped

“High risk” NCRMDs

Must have committed a serious offence, have a high likelihood of reoffending, and acts so severe that they pose a risk to the public → must be held in psychiatric facility

Automatism

Unconscious, involuntary behavior, person not aware of what they are doing (e.g. sleep-walking); judged on a case-by-case basis in court

Non-insane automatism

Behavior occurs because of an external factor such as brain trauma, physical ailments like a stroke, hypoglycemia, carbon monoxide poisoning, sleepwalking, involuntary intoxication

Insane automatism

Behavior occurs due to a mental disorder

Intoxication as a defense

Was overturned and Bill C-72 passed where self-induced intoxication is no longer recognized as a defense

Fit defendants with mental disorders

Offenders have higher rates of mental disorders than the general population, but still determined fit for trial; may be due to higher chances of being arrested, caught, and pleading guilty

Mental illness and violence

Some links between psychiatric diagnosis and physical violence; but not predictive of reoffending

Community treatment order

Allows mentally ill offender to live in the community, and receiving treatment or detention in the event their condition deteriorates

Diversion

Diverting mentally offenders directly into treatment with the goal of preparing them for reintegration

Mental health courts

For minor to moderate offenses and ensuring treatment for mental disorders; more satisfaction with perceived higher fairness and justice; reduced reoffending and criminal needs

Risk

A range probability estimate of if a person will commit criminal or violent acts; can change across time and interact with other factors

Components of risk assessment

Prediction and management

Baxstrom and Dixon studies

“Dangerous” forensic patients were released, but few actually reoffended; concluding that risk assessment predictions are often inaccurate

Risk assessment in civil settings

Civil commitment, child protection, immigration laws, school/labor regulations, duty to warn

Duty to warn

The duty of a professional to break confidentiality to warn third parties or authorities if a client poses a serious, imminent danger of violence

Risk assessment in criminal settings

Conducted before trial, at sentencing, custody, and release (i.e., all major decision points); public safety may outweigh confidentiality

False positive prediction

When a criminal is predicted to reoffend, but does not

True positive prediction

When a criminal is predicted to reoffend, and does reoffend

True negative prediction

When a criminal is predicted to not reoffend, and does not reoffend

False negative prediction

When a criminal is predicted to not reoffend, but reoffends

Base rate problem

The percentage of people in a population who commit a criminal

Methodological of measuring risk

Assumptions that risk can be measured, cannot measure high risks due to inability to release offenders, weak construct

Risk judgement error and biases

Clinical judgement is impacted by potential inaccurate heuristics like illusory correlation, ignoring base rates, and over confidence in judgements