This article reviews and evaluates publications during 2001-2010 with relevance for assessments of competence to stand trial, referred to in this article as adjudicative competence. The review focuses specifically on articles that provide new concepts or data supported by research or case analyses. The studies are reviewed under the following headings: (i) systemic issues, (ii) conceptual guidelines for AC evaluations, (iii) AC assessment methods, (iv) empirical correlates of AC judgments and psycholegal abilities, (v) quality of AC evaluations and reports, (vi) interpretive issues, (vii) special populations (defendants who are elderly, defendants with intellectual disabilities), (viii) AC evaluations of juveniles, and (ix) treatment of incompetent defendants. Suggestions are offered for further research to advance the quality of clinical evaluations of adjudicative competence.
This article reviews and evaluates publications during 1996-2000 with relevance for assessments of competence to stand trial (also known as adjudicative competence). The review focuses specifically on articles that provide new concepts or data supported by research or case analyses. The studies are reviewed under the following headings: (i) the systemic context of evaluations of adjudicative competence (AC); (ii) conceptual guidelines for AC evaluations; (iii) research on AC assessment methods; (iv) empirical correlates of AC judgments and psycholegal abilities; (v) quality of AC evaluations and reports; (vi) interpretation of AC evaluation data; (vii) issues in AC assessment of special populations (e.g., juveniles, persons with mental retardation, and women); and (viii) treatment to restore competence. Suggestions are offered for further research to advance the quality of clinical evaluations of adjudicative competence.
In this article, we argue against testifying to the ultimate legal issue. There is no basis in science or clinical knowledge for determining the degree of capacity that is required in order to reach the threshold of capacity associated with legal questions such as competency and criminal responsibility. Society qualifies mental health professionals to provide expert testimony on the basis of their clinical and scientific expertise. Thus testifying to the ultimate legal issue is inappropriate and illogical and to do so threatens the integrity of mental health professions and the legal process
This chapter examines violence risk assessments of sex offenders. The impact of a clinician providing an assessment of an individual's risk of violence, just like assessment of risk of sexual re-offending, can be great, influencing determinations that may result in loss of liberty and even death. Overlap often exists between the need to assess risk factors related to harmful sexual behaviors and the need to assess risk of future violence. As the two lines of research in sex offender risk assessment and violence risk assessment continue to expand, clinicians in the position of assessing risk among sex offenders will also need to maintain an awareness of the literature related to general violence risk assessment. The chapter reviews research and current knowledge related to general violence risk assessment and its overlap with mental illness, and delineates approaches to violence risk assessments based on current understanding of risk factors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.