Incompetency To Stand Trial: Is Psychiatry Necessary?

Bendt, Richard H.; Balcanoff, Eugene J.; Tragellis, Gregory S.

doi:10.1176/ajp.130.11.1288

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on recommendations by forensic evaluators regarding CST and CR has received moderate attention, with a great deal of variability noted in the literature. For example, rates of incompetence to stand trial among evaluators have ranged from 4% to 77% (Bendt, Balcanoff, & Tragellis, 1973;Bittman & Convit, 1993;Gold, 1973;Nicholson & Johnson, 1991;Roesch and Golding, 1980; 1998; Steadman, Monahan, Hartstone, Davis, & Robbins, 1982;Warren, Fitch, Dietz, & Rosenfeld, 1991;Warren, Rosenfeld, Fitch, & Hawk, 1997). The large discrepancy may be explained by small sample sizes in some studies, overrepresentation of certain crimes, and setting differences (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between criminal charges, diagnoses, and psycholegal opinions among federal pretrial defendants

Cochrane

Grisso²,

Frederick³

2001

Behavioral Sci & The Law

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyzed data from 1710 criminal defendants referred by federal courts throughout the United States. We examined 12 categories of criminal charges with respect to diagnosed psychopathology and opinions related to competence to stand trial (CST) and criminal responsibility (CR) at the time of the alleged offense. Overall, 18% of the present sample were found to be incompetent to stand trial, while 12% were found to be not criminally responsible or 'insane.' In this study, crimes were associated with rates of psychopathology and rates of opinions regarding CST and CR. The findings of this study suggest that individuals who are charged with different crimes have different mental states and psychopathology and are therefore found to have differential rates of competence and sanity.

show abstract