The impact of defendants' race in competency to stand trial referrals

Harris, Shana; Weiss, Rebecca

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.01.003

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite being created with the statutes of Utah in mind, the BCAT does ultimately aim to address the standards established by Dusky v. United States and thus it may still have broad generalizability without any modification, though this could be examined in future studies. Additionally, this study included only male subjects; it is possible the results would differ if it included females, though studies suggest that demographic variables do not appear to be significant in other aspects of adjudicative competence such as restoration rates (Advokat et al, 2012;Harris & Weiss, 2018;Pirelli et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussion Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing the BCAT: A Tool to Aid Treatment Providers in Assessing Adjudicative Competence

Bartlett¹

2023

JoFSW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The most frequently requested forensic evaluations are to assess a defendant's competency to proceed, yet inefficiencies in the competency review process often lead to wasted state resources and prolonged detainment. When a judge identifies a defendant as incompetent, criminal proceedings are postponed and the defendant is typically ordered to receive competency restoration treatment. The court also schedules a hearing to review the defendant’s progress toward competency and orders a competency examiner to prepare a progress report for that hearing. If the court then determines the defendant is competent their case will proceed, otherwise the court will generally order that competency restoration treatment continue. These competency examinations and their associated court hearings typically occur in standard intervals, such as every three months. It is common for defendants to be restored to competency prior to their next scheduled court hearing, but competency examiners and courts are often not apprised of this development. This is partially due to dynamics associated with treatment providers. Though treatment providers such as psychiatrists and clinical social workers are trained in mental health issues, they are not typically trained to determine if a defendant is competent. Consequently, they may inadvertently continue to provide daily competency restoration treatment to a defendant who has already been restored to competency. Such occurrences contribute to a waste of resources, unnecessarily long detainment for competency restoration treatment, and an unnecessarily long postponement of legal proceedings. This study examines whether the Bartlett Competency Assessment Tool (BCAT) could be utilized by treatment providers to assist them in determining if a defendant is likely competent to proceed and thus ready for a formal competency examination. The recommendation of the BCAT was compared to the recommendation of formal competency examinations for 27 defendants and accurately predicted the outcome of the examinations in 25 cases, or 92 percent of the time (96 percent of the time if situations with feigned symptoms are excluded). Implications and limitations of these findings are discussed, including the potential of the BCAT to help states better utilize resources and reduce unnecessary treatment and detainment.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing the BCAT: A Tool to Aid Treatment Providers in Assessing Adjudicative Competence

Bartlett¹

2023

JoFSW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These disparities impact perceptions; only one in five Black individuals believe that law enforcement applies laws equally across races, and 50% believe that law enforcement perceives all Black people as suspects, resulting in the wrong identification and subsequent arrest of innocent Black people (Jones-Brown, 2000). And, even more relevant for forensic psychologists, Black defendants are more likely to be involuntarily hospitalized, more likely to be referred for competence to stand trial evaluations, and more likely to be deemed incompetent as a result (Harris & Weiss, 2018). Inherent racism and inequalities such as these, which have plagued disadvantaged individuals and communities of color for hundreds of years, can result in racial trauma, a factor that can provide critical information in the context of Miranda waiver evaluations.…”

Section: Racial Trauma As a Construct Influencing Miranda Waiversmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking the next step in Miranda evaluations: Considering racial trauma and the impact of prior police contact.

Kavanaugh¹,

Pietruszka²,

Rynczak³

et al. 2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By law, before interrrogating a suspect who is in custody, the police should inform them of their Miranda rights-the rights against self-incrimination and to an attorney. When a suspect or defendant waives their Miranda rights, a judge ultimately determines whether the waiver was legal. In making this determination, the judge employs the totality of the circumstances (TOC) analysis, which includes factors related to the individual defendant as well as the environment in which they waived their rights. Frequently, forensic psychologists evaluate a defendant to offer courts a clinical opinion about the defendant's ability to understand and appreciate their Miranda rights and to provide other TOC information. These evaluations are referred to as Miranda evaluations. Using Miranda evaluations as an illustration, this article describes how the critical, yet often overlooked, concepts of racial trauma and vicarious and direct prior police contacts should routinely be considered as part of forensic evaluations. After providing a succinct overview of the relevant legal issues related to Miranda rights and of the existing guidelines for conducting Miranda evaluations, we discuss the psychological impact of racial trauma and prior vicarious and direct police contacts. We provide case examples to illustrate how evaluators can consider the impact of racial trauma and prior police contact when conducting Miranda evaluations. This article serves as a practical guide for understanding how and why-in the context of their lived experiences-suspects may waive their Miranda rights. Finally, we recommend how to improve policy and research to better capture issues related to racial trauma and prior police contacts. Public Significance StatementThe work of forensic psychologists can help shape policy and law at local and national levels. Using Miranda evaluations as an example, we demonstrate how forensic psychologists can modify their existing practices to ensure their work more accurately reflects the lived experiences of the people they evaluate and research.

show abstract