A Quick Screening Test of Competency to Stand Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation

Smith, Stuart A.; Hudson, Robert L.

doi:10.2466/pr0.1995.76.1.91

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with the research by Smith and Hudson (1995) and Smith (1993), many individuals with DD (45%) did not understand the concept of "guilty." A few DD individuals reversed the meaning of the terms "guilty" and "innocent."…”

Section: Understanding Of Legal Terminologysupporting

confidence: 76%

“…Recent studies suggest that people with DD are less likely to understand their rights when accused of crimes, such as the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present before and during questioning, and the potential use of their statements in court proceedings (Everington & Fulero, 1999; Fulero & Everington, 1995). Smith and Hudson (1995), in a study designed to provide a quick screen for competency to stand trial for individuals with DD, found that defendants who were competent and not competent to stand trial differed significantly in their understanding of 7 of 19 legal terms. Understanding of the terms “court strategy,” “plead,” “testify,” “jury,” “guilty,” “trial” and “prosecutor” were maximally predictive of whether an individual might require further screening to determine competency.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Knowledge of legal terminology and court proceedings in adults with developmental disabilities.

Ericson

Perlman

2001

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research compared 40 adults with mild developmental disabilities (DD) and 40 nondelayed adults (ND) in terms of knowledge of legal terms and court proceedings. For all of the 34 terms studied, with the exception of "police officer" there were significant differences between the DD and ND groups with respect to degree of conceptual understanding of terms. Results indicate that all but 6 terms assessed (adjourn, allegation, crown attorney, defendant, prosecute, and court reporter) were well-defined by 85% or more of ND participants. In contrast, only 8 of the terms (police officer, lawyer, jail, court, lie, truth, judge, and witness) were reasonably conceptually understood by at least 75% of DD participants. Reported familiarity with terms in DD participants is not a reliable indicator of actual familiarity with terms. Results are discussed with respect to the need for education of DD individuals and legal professionals to support participation and fair treatment of DD individuals in legal situations.To date, very little research has been conducted to examine understanding of legal proceedings and terminology in people with developmental disabilities (DD). People with DD, however, are increasingly coming into contact with the criminal justice system. This is in part due to the fact that over the past decade it has come to light that people with DD are significantly over-represented in cases of physical, sexual, and

show abstract

Section: Understanding Of Legal Terminologysupporting

confidence: 76%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge of legal terminology and court proceedings in adults with developmental disabilities.

Ericson

Perlman

2001

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…36 Legally, significant impairments then become visible only when the individual also has a severe mental illness or acts in a strange or disruptive manner. 37 Smith and Hudson identified a screening device 38 that could be used to identify intellectually disabled defendants and case studies have provided some guidance for assessing 39,40 and restoring 41 this population to competency.…”

Section: Individuals With Intellectual Disabilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competence to stand trial and criminalization: an overview of the research

Beltrani

Zapf

2019

CNS Spectr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beginning in the 1960s, a steady decline in the number of inpatient psychiatric beds has occurred across the United States, primarily as a result of stricter civil commitment criteria and a societal movement toward deinstitutionalization. Concomitant with this decrease in psychiatric beds has been a steady increase in the number of mentally ill individuals who are arrested and processed through the criminal justice system as defendants. One consequence of this has been an explosion in the number of defendants referred for evaluations of their present mental state—adjudicative competence—and subsequently found incompetent and ordered to complete a period of competency restoration. This has resulted in forensic mental health systems that are overwhelmed by the demand for services and that are unable to meet the needs of these defendants in a timely manner. In many states, lawsuits have been brought by defendants who have had their liberties restricted as a result of lengthy confinements in jail awaiting forensic services. The stress on state-wide forensic systems has become so widespread that this has reached the level of a near-national crisis. Many states and national organizations are currently attempting to study these issues and develop creative strategies for relieving this overburdening of forensic mental health systems nationwide. The purpose of this article is to review the current state of the research on competence to stand trial and to highlight those issues that might be relevant to the issue of criminalization of individuals with mental illness in the United States.

show abstract

“…In the United States, several research studies have been carried out in regard to the evaluations of competency/fitness to stand trial Warren et al, 2004), and screening instruments for use in such competency evaluations have been developed (Vitacco et al, 2007;Zapf & Roesh, 1997;Smith & Hudson, 1995;Zapf & Viljoen, 2003). These studies suggest that competency reports have some similarities to the European screening reports as far as their length and the methods used, although the purpose of the competency reports is quite different, and these reports shall examine the mental status of the defendant with regard to his competence to appear in court, to understand the proceedings, and to participate or assist in his own defence.…”

Section: Screening Reports Versus Competency Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scandinavian forensic psychiatric practices – an overview and evaluation

Grøndahl

2005

Nordic Journal of Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Scandinavian countries share a social-democratic and humanistic view in that mentally disturbed offenders should not be punished or sentenced to prison if they are considered unaccountable for their actions. The countries differ, however, for example regarding referrals for medico-legal examinations. This article gives: 1) an overview of the Scandinavian forensic psychiatric practices regarding organization, legislation, resources and use of methods, and 2) a study of forensic psychiatric assessment as they are done in the Scandinavian countries. From each country 20 forensic psychiatric court reports concerning male murderers were examined. Each report was scored in five sections: characteristics of the defendant, setting of the observation, acting professions, methods used and premises for the experts' conclusions. Data were summarized with descriptive measures. Danish and Swedish experts had a more frequent use of tests and instruments than Norwegian experts. Swedish experts used the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF), and they diagnosed the observant according to DSM-IV. The Scandinavian experts rarely referred to the tests they had applied nor did they refer to any kind of theory or literature as a basis for their conclusion. Only a few reports expressed doubt concerning the validity of the conclusion. Stating all the premises of the forensic psychiatric examination might improve the quality of the reports by doing them more explicit and verifiable. More use of standardized actuarial-based methods and more attention to knowledge about clinical judgmental processes is recommended.

show abstract

A Quick Screening Test of Competency to Stand Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation

Cited by 14 publications

References 4 publications

Knowledge of legal terminology and court proceedings in adults with developmental disabilities.

Knowledge of legal terminology and court proceedings in adults with developmental disabilities.

Competence to stand trial and criminalization: an overview of the research

Scandinavian forensic psychiatric practices – an overview and evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About