Crime and Mental Disorders

Competence to Stand Trial

Dusky v US (1960) Defendants need sufficient ability to consult with their attorneys, and a rational and factual understanding of legal proceedings to stand trial

Most evaluations are conducted in jail settings on defendants with histories of psychiatric care and most are found competent

Incompetent defendants are typically sent to facilities to restore competency. Indefinite confinement of incompetent offenders prohibited

Adjudicative Competence

The ability to participate in a wide variety of court activities (competence to proceed and decisional competence)

Need to be competence at all stages of the trial! (ex. competence to consent to search and seizure, competence to exercise right to remain silent, etc.)

Criminal Responsibility/Insanity Defense

The offender’s state of mind at the time the offense was committed

M’Naghten Rule

Insanity standard asking if mental illness stopped the defendant from knowing right from wrong. Focuses on cognitive capacity and the nature of thought

Brawner Rule

Insanity standard stating if as a result of mental disease, the defendant lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. Excludes repeated criminal behavior and APD. Recognized diminished/partial responsibility.

Durham Rule

Insanity standard’s “product test” stating that a defendant is not criminally responsible if the act was a direct result of a mental disease. Became unpopular due to the vagueness of “mental disease or illness” and misuse of mental health experts in trial

Insanity Defense Reform Act 1984

Modified insanity defense focused more towards M’Naghten rule and inability to appreciate wrongfulness of conduct at the time of the offense. Burden of proof placed on the defense, eliminated defense of diminished capacity, created “not guilty only by reason of insanity”

Risk Assessments

Assessment focused on probability that someone will engage in harmful behavior.

Unstructured - highly subjective, based on clinician’s experience and opinion, no statistical basis, and unknown factors are taken into account

Structured professional judgement (SPJ) - uses established guidelines but still somewhat subjective

Actuarial - based on a compilation of risk factors, objectively assessed, focused on a small number of risk factors

Threat Assessment

Assessment conducted on a person who has made a threat to identify parties involved, assess the situation, and manage to reduce the possibility of violence.