Evaluating fitness to stand trial

Roesch, Ronald; Eaves, David; Sollner, Rebecca; Normandin, Marie; Glackman, William

doi:10.1016/0160-2527(81)90025-x

Cited by 30 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As has been found in previous research (Menzies et al, 1982; Reich & Wells, 1985; Roesch et al, 1981), marked differences between fit and unfit patients occurred on common sociodemographic variables. Of particular concern is the finding that non-white patients were judged as questionably fit/unfit at approximately three times the rate of white patients.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Additionally, these authors found that patients judged unfit were likely to be older, better educated, and less likely to have committed violent crimes. Other researchers have found that unfit as compared to fit defendants were more likely to (1) be diagnosed as having a psychotic disorder (Bluestone & Melella, 1979; Reich & Wells, 1985; Roesch, Eaves, Sollner, Normandin, & Glackman, 1981; Steadman, 1979), (2) to have had a previous psychiatric history (Bluestone & Melella, 1979), (3) be better educated (Reich & Wells, 1985), (4) be in a transient living situation (Roesch et al, 1981), and (5) to have had repeated evaluations of their fitness to stand trial (Reich & Wells, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fitness evaluations: A retrospective study of clinical, criminal, and sociodemographic characteristics.

Rogers¹,

Gillis²,

McMain³

et al. 1988

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A retrospective study of 470 patients remanded for fitness-to-stand-trial evaluations was conducted, examining diagnostic judgments, MMPI data, and criminal and sociodemographic variables. Fitness opinions rendered to the court by a pool of 10 staff psychiatrists constituted the dependent variable under investigation. Results of univariate analyses demonstrated differences between fit and unfit subjects on the basis of race, age, primary diagnosis, and history of substance abuse. Findings from stepwise discriminant analyses revealed that sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., race, age, and sex) could predict fitness with 71% accuracy. These results are discussed with respect to the current assessment practices and the potential bias in clinical judgments of fitness to stand trial.Assessments of fitness to stand trial represent a high proportion of pre-trial evaluations (Kunjukrishnan & Bradford, 1985) with a conservative estimate of 5000 competency evaluations conducted each year in Canada (Webster, Menzies, & Jackson, 1982). Despite the frequency of these evaluations and their importance to the accused, clinicians are offered little statutory guidance on the meaning of fitness to stand trial. The standard, an exercise in definitional ambiguity, states that unfitness occurs when there is "sufficient reason to doubt that the accused is, on account of insanity, capable of conducting his defense" (Criminal Code, S.543[l]).Mr. Gilbert Sharpe, chairman of the Mental Disorder Project, Federal Department of Justice, proposed explicit criteria for legislative change in the fitness standard. These changes were incorporated into proposed amendments to the Canadian Criminal Code (Minister of Justice, 1986) defining fitness as the "inability of the accused to (a) understand the nature or object of the proceedings, (b) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or (c) communicate with counsel" (p. 1). These amendments to the Criminal Code, if accepted, might improve the reliability and validity of fitness decisions. Until such amendments are passed, however, clinicians will have to rely on their own personal, non-legal understanding of what constitutes fitness to stand trial.A review of the research on fitness to stand trial has demonstrated that the clinical application of the fitness standard has many unexpected correlates. While several studies have examined the relationship of either sociodemographic, clinical, or psychometric variables to the judgment of fitness to stand trial, none have looked at a combination of these variables. Menzies, Jackson, and Glasberg (1982), in an

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fitness evaluations: A retrospective study of clinical, criminal, and sociodemographic characteristics.

Rogers¹,

Gillis²,

McMain³

et al. 1988

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The typical demographic profile of individuals in the US who have been found incompetent to stand trial is of low-skilled single males with limited education who have been charged with a violent crime (Steadman 1979). Roesch et al (1981) found that 89.7% of their cohort of unfit defendants were diagnosed with some form of psychosis. This is consistent with findings from other studies (Roesch and Golding 1980;Cooke 1969).…”

Section: Psychiatric Symptoms and Legal Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, as many as 40% of defendants with no psychiatric diagnosis were found to be impaired on one or more aspects of legal ability, as measured by the Fitness Interview Test instrument. Roesch et al (1981) also looked at observed ward behaviours for this group of patients, and found that unfit defendants were observed to be more preoccupied, verbally abusive, nonverbally hostile in general, and menacing or physically assaultative towards others. They were also viewed as hostile and sarcastic, socially isolated on the ward, laughing inappropriately, engaging in bizarre gestures or postures, talking to themselves, having incoherent or disorganised speech, and being restless.…”

Section: Psychiatric Symptoms and Legal Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Fitness to Plead Fit for Purpose

Shah¹

2012

Int. J. Criminol. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the England and Wales criminal justice system, consideration of a defendant's ability to stand trial is known as 'fitness to plead'. No accused person may face trial unless they are fit to plead to the charges against them. The fitness to plead criteria date back to the 19 th century, and have been virtually unchanged. Developed from case law relating to sensory impairment and intellectual disability, they are now routinely utilised for severe and enduring mental illnesses, predominantly psychotic disorders. The fitness to plead criteria are no longer appropriate to meet modern understanding of complex mental disorders, and are shamefully archaic in comparison to civil capacity legislation. This paper outlines the development of the fitness to plead criteria and process, summarises current criticisms and proposes potential reform in this fundamental area of mental health law.

show abstract

“…Debates about "civil commitment" of addicts or the mentally ill often centre on the notion of mis-allocation between the health and criminal justice systems for instance (e.g, Canadian concerns [Roesch, 1981] that "unfitness for trial" powers are used to circumvent restrictions on civil detention of the mentally ill; or historic concerns that civil commitment was a proxy for imprisonment). Ideally, people allocated to the "proper" system should then receive coordinated passage through the different program sectors if this is called for.…”

Section: Interseetoral Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Configurations of Justice and Services for the Vulnerable: Panacea or Panegyric?

Carney

2000

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A ccessible justice (tribunals). integrated justice (drug courts). community justice (sentencing circles or "conferencing"), group justice (ulysses agreements). and contractual justice (private "settlements") are new ways of tackling old problems; often ones involving vulnerable groups.Vulnerable groups pose particular challenges about whether the state should intervene. in what ways. and whether through the legal. medical. or welfare systems. New programs. with new objectives and new sectoral boundaries. necessarily raise new questions. Questions about ethical foundations. Questions about implications for "citizenship". or for the rule of law. or for distributional equity.And questions about program "effectiveness". This paper identifies common themes and patterns in the reforms. including "active" rather than passive adjudication. judicial commitment to realisation of identified goals, intersectoral collaboration, community input or control. and use of privatised "contraetualist" metaphors. It considers the extent to which this reflects globalisation (harmonisation with civil law experience). or is emblematic of "postmodernism" (better attuning programs to diversity and fluidity). or other theoretical positions (such as contractualism and republican citizenship). It is argued that these experiments should be cautiously welcomed. subject to rigorous assessment of their merits. since their over-enthusiastic adoption risks breaches of fundamental ethical. civil citizenship, or medico-legal precepts. and may allow theory to outstrip its evidentiary base. Innovation and experimentation in criminal justice or civil treatment is commendable. especially in social policy areas littered with the detritus of prior program failures, or beset with tricky conundrums. Such experimentation has taken place for centuries, despite the thorny ethical or policy issues which can arise (Auerbach, 1983; Kittrie, 1971). A revised version of a paper presented at the 24th Congress of the Academy of Law and Mental Health, Toronto, 16-18June 1999. I am indebted to Myra Cheng for research assistance in finalising this paper, and comments by two anonymous reviewers.

show abstract

Evaluating fitness to stand trial

Cited by 30 publications

References 13 publications

Fitness evaluations: A retrospective study of clinical, criminal, and sociodemographic characteristics.

Fitness evaluations: A retrospective study of clinical, criminal, and sociodemographic characteristics.

Making Fitness to Plead Fit for Purpose

New Configurations of Justice and Services for the Vulnerable: Panacea or Panegyric?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About