Competency to stand trial evaluations in a multicultural population: Associations between psychiatric, demographic, and legal factors

Paradis, Cheryl M.; Owen, Elizabeth; Solomon, Linda Zener; Lane, Benjamin; Gulrajani, Chinmoy; Fullar, Michael; Perry, Alan; Rai, Sasha; Lavy, Tamar; McCullough, Gene

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.039

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple studies have found opinion differences based on defendants' language (Ramos-González et al, 2016;Varela et al, 2011), immigration status (Cabeldue et al, 2021;Crocker et al, 2002), ethnic background (McCallum et al, 2015Nicholson & Kugler, 1991;Rogers et al, 1988), or gender (Crocker et al, 2002;Dirks-Linhorst et al, 2019;Rogers et al, 1988). However, several other studies have found no statistical differences (Cooper & Zapf, 2003;Ho, 1999;Kois et al, 2013;Paradis et al, 2016;Pirelli et al, 2011). These results might differ because some studies did not assess for intersectionality.…”

Section: Awareness Of Areas Of Possible Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

An uncomfortable tension: Reconciling the principles of forensic psychology and cultural competency.

Bergkamp¹,

McIntyre²,

Hauser³

2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: State of Washington v. Sisouvanh (2012) was the first case in which an appellate court asserted the need for cultural competence in competency-to-stand-trial evaluations. A court reiterated this need in State of Washington v. Ortiz-Abrego (2017). Research in forensic psychology seldom addressed cultural considerations in pretrial evaluations until this past decade, but the growing body of literature pales in comparison to the work found in clinical and counseling psychology. Most of the current literature acknowledges the lack of professionally sanctioned practice guidelines and makes valuable suggestions regarding how to address cultural factors that are relevant to the requisite capacities of legal competency. Yet, none of this research addresses potential risks incurred by the evaluators who attempt to incorporate these suggestions into practice or acknowledges the possible incompatibility between forensic and cultural competency principles. Hypotheses: The authors posit there may be areas of incompatability, or tension, between the tenets of forensic psychology and cultural competency. Method: To examine this potential incompatibility, we reviewed legal cases with cultural implications, addressed recent developments regarding cultural "incompetence," and conducted an overview of cultural competency in clinical and forensic psychology. Results: Comparing general principles of forensic psychology with those of cultural responsiveness and humility, we found that questions emerged regarding the potential philosophical conflicts as well as risks that may be incurred by individual evaluators in legal settings. Conclusions: The resultant dilemma sets the stage for pragmatic suggestions regarding communication, assessment, and diagnosis. Finally, we emphasize the need for sanctioned practice guidelines. Public Significance StatementThe field of forensic psychology must reconcile the potential incompatibility between forensic and cultural competency principles to better support forensic professionals in their practice. We encourage practitioners to utilize existing methods and tools to integrate cultural factors, and we call on professional organizations involved in forensic psychology to assist in clarifying how to operationalize social responsiveness within the field.

show abstract

Section: Awareness Of Areas Of Possible Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

An uncomfortable tension: Reconciling the principles of forensic psychology and cultural competency.

Bergkamp¹,

McIntyre²,

Hauser³

2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is reasonable then, that interpreters are commonly used in forensic practice (Weiss & Rosenfeld, 2012). Despite this, very little research has addressed the impact of language interpretation in forensic evaluation, and these samples were drawn from populations with relatively diverse demographics (Kois et al, 2013; Paradis et al, 2016; Varela et al, 2011) Researchers can consider the impact of in vivo versus remote interpretation services, as well as baseline accuracy rates for language interpretation. This work is particularly important to ensure reliable and valid exchange of information and ultimately inform best practice as the population continues to diversify.…”

Section: Research Priorities For Forensic E-mental Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic e-mental health: Review, research priorities, and policy directions.

Kois¹,

Cox²,

Peck³

2021

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forensic e-mental health is an area of psychology that is relatively underdeveloped considering technological advancements and the many mental health needs of justice-involved individuals. It includes the procurement, storage, sharing, and provision of forensic mental health information and services via electronic means and is associated with improved accessibility, efficiency, cost-savings, and safety. During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinics, hospitals, jails, prisons, and the courts rapidly adopted these modalities for service continuity out of necessity, rather than choice. In the absence of formal guidelines, practitioners, researchers, and policymakers were left searching for answers: what forensic e-mental health technologies are available, what was their research evidence, and what could the future hold? A "primer" covering the many aspects of technology-assisted forensic practice and research was overdue. To address this knowledge gap, we reviewed the e-mental health research base encompassing forensic evaluations and interventions. Considering stakeholders' needs, cost, and feasibility, we prioritized key topics that should rise to the top of the forensic e-mental health research agenda: the psychometric properties of forensic e-mental health assessments, impact of video recording evaluations, how to assess and treat diverse populations, restoration of competence to proceed, continuum of care, minimizing treatment attrition, and decreasing substance use. We report how to plan for and overcome logistical hurdles when implementing forensic e-mental health policy, utilize technology for training and education, and harness digitized data across the forensic realm. In conclusion, we find that there is ample opportunity for leveraging technology to improve forensic mental health practice, research, and policy.

show abstract

“…However, if some unexpected events or circumstances regarding the competency to stand trial occur during this 6-month period, supplemental evaluation can be ordered. There has been a dozen of papers published discussing correlations between medical and legal criteria for the evaluation of such questions (Mandarelli et al, 2019; Paradis et al, 2016; Tartaro et al, 2018). Studies about reliability of repeated forensic evaluations have also been published (Gowensmith et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Makes Forensic Psychiatric Experts Change Their Opinion in Supplemental Evaluations?

Periša

Arbanas

2022

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are cases in forensic psychiatric evaluations with inconclusive information or with important information missing. In such situations, when new information becomes available the judge may ask an expert to supplement his/her report in the light of new information. For the purpose of this study, we collected 42 supplemental evaluations written in the University Psychiatric Hospital Vrapče to determine possible factors which were associated with changes in supplemental evaluations. The following data were gathered: demographic data, types of criminal offenses, reasons for the supplement evaluation, court questions, and diagnoses. Changes in supplemental evaluations occured more often when the defendants were diagnosed with a personality disorder (PD) only, compared to those who had a PD with a comorbidity, especially substance use disorders. Defendants with the diagnosis of a substance use disorder were 63.7% less likely to have changed experts’ evaluations. The evaluations remained the same when the reason for supplemental evaluations were new witnesses’ testimonies. Considering the principle of economy of actions in a judiciary system, a more critical approach should be taken when the judge requests a supplemental report.

show abstract

Competency to stand trial evaluations in a multicultural population: Associations between psychiatric, demographic, and legal factors

Cited by 9 publications

References 21 publications

An uncomfortable tension: Reconciling the principles of forensic psychology and cultural competency.

An uncomfortable tension: Reconciling the principles of forensic psychology and cultural competency.

Forensic e-mental health: Review, research priorities, and policy directions.

What Makes Forensic Psychiatric Experts Change Their Opinion in Supplemental Evaluations?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About