forensic psychology exam 2

Difference in definitions of competency and capacity

Competency traditionally used to indicate legal findings/status whereas Capacity referred to clinical findings/status

Current trend in legal and clinical settings for evaluations

to focus on specific functional capacities in contrast to a more difficult to define global type of legal or clinical status

Evaluations may address capacities for:

• Giving medical consent; managing one’s healthcare (including refusing psychotropics)

• Giving consent for sexual relations

• Independently managing one’s finances

• Executing a valid will

• Driving

• Independent living 

• Making a confession

• Pleading guilty

• Waiving right to counsel

• Even choosing homelessness (Want et al., 2015)

It is entirely possible for person to lack capacity for some but not other functional areas.

Competency to stand trial

• Requires assessment of specific psychological and functional capacities which may or may not be relevant to other types of legal competency

• Is a current status assessment such that the same person may be found incompetent at one point in time but not another (Grisso, 2014)

competency to stand trial may also be referred to as:

• Fitness to Stand Trial

• Fitness to Proceed

• Competence to Proceed

• Adjudicative Competence 

Why perform CST exams?

1. Create fairness for a defendant in the criminal trial process (accused should be mentally fit for trial) – Fair Fight Principle 

2. Maintain integrity of justice system

3. Maximize likelihood of accurate information in a trial (Grisso, 2014)

The Sixth Amendment guarantee defendants in criminal cases:

• The rights to effective counsel, to confront their accusers, and to present evidence

• Mental impairments may prevent a defendant from effectively working with their attorney and participating in their defense

The Dusky Standard

• 1960 Supreme Court Decision which provides definition of competence to stand trial

• Utilized as standard in federal and in most state courts

• Context: 32 year old man charged with kidnapping and rape of underage female. Suffering from schizophrenia but found competent to stand trial. Given sentence of 45 years in prison. The Supreme Court reversed the sentence on grounds that he wasn’t competent enough to stand trial. New trial- sentenced to 20 years.