Read Chapters 8 & 9 of your textbook (your post does not need to be double length even though it is over 2 chapters).
Summarize the chapters. What information was most surpising or interesting to you? What do you know now that you did not know prior to reading these chapters? How have your views of insanity changed (or not) through these readings?
Provide a list of psychological and legal terms you used at the bottom of your post
The competency to stand trial (CST) and insanity go together like peanut butter and jelly, these two go hand and hand. The CST is simply put as the ability to participate in criminal proceedings adequately and be able to aid in one’s own defense (pg. 164). Chapter 8 summarizes it perfectly for us so I do not know why I have to do it for us all again, but I will anyway.
While on trial and sitting in the very court room that can determine you fate of where you may end up, full participation is pretty much the key thing to have. Without having full attention and awareness of what is happening around you or what is going on in the court room can really kill your mojo, but when you have full attention and awareness it gives you somewhat the upper hand on the situation and could improve the likelihood of what your verdict will turn out to be like.
Would it be right to put someone in prison if they were mentally challenged? When reading chapter 8 we can see that with the proper examination of the defendant that it is not right to put them through this with them being incompetent. Like stated on page 165 The Dusky Standard has been put into place after the case Dusky v. United States, Dusky was a mentally challenged man who was at the time of the incident incompetent. Through the case it was announced that he had suffered from having schizophrenia, which this can easily put someone in the area of not being able to be put in trial. At the end of trial the court ruled that he was indeed able to stand trial and was sentenced to a prison sentence of 45 years. With all of this being said and reading further on in the chapter CST is put at the TIME OF TRIAL and not at the time of the criminal act; which in the case of Milton Dusky he was competent to stand at trial just not at the time of the crime.
Along with being incompetent and competent, the lovely Supreme Court put together the thought of a presumption of CST, where the defendant is pretty much stable and competent until he or she is found to be the complete opposite. They have begun to use the preponderance of the evidence standard; this is used when trying to figure out CST, this goes along with the presumption of CST where they have to prove that he or she is incompetent of standing trial.
This also leads in with the adolescent stage in life, should children be put in the category of being incompetent of standing trial and when should they be tried as an adult? As it states in our book that when children are in the adolescent stage in life they are lacking the ability to really understand the criminal justice system and may not know what is going on. Should this be considered CST, I have no idea.
Now chapter 9 ties in with all of this, the insanity defense. The insanity defense is a bunch of crock I think, everyone thinks that they can pull this card out when they have done a terrible thing like take someone else’s life and they think they can get a lesser sentence because of it. This is not how things should be. Reading chapter 9 it brings a lot of questions to my mind, clinical psychologists look at the little things and study the mental illnesses that can be looked at as insane. Like the Dusky case we read before he was incompetent at the TIME OF THE CRIME not at the TIME OF THE CASE so this is so called “insanity.” Insanity is the state of mind at the time of the crime just like stated in the last sentence. Chapter 9 just goes on about different cases and defenses that have been going on. It also talks about different evaluations and testing that happens to figure things out with a person.
Everything that I have read is surprising to me, there was never a dull moment reading these chapters. It gave me a lot of insight to what really goes on when judges have to look at the defendant and figure out if they should be put to a prison sentence or just let go with a large warning. My view of the insanity plea and whether or not a person is able to withstand trial or not had not changed. I still think that it all fits well and should be in place. Nothing should be changed.
KEY TERMS: Competency to stand trial, presumption of CST, preponderance of the evidence standard, clinical psychology, insanity
I find the topics for this week to be very interesting. We have just started discussing competency, insanity, and trials in another one of my classes as well. I love that these two classes line up and help cover more of this particular area of law and psychology. It is great to have the chance to apply what I am learning here to my Criminal Justice Systems class and vise versa.
The two topics for this week get confused quite often. I will admit that I used them interchangeably before we got to this point of the semester. Competency defines someone’s state of mind at the time of the trial. To be competent to stand trial, one must have the ability to participate in his or her trial, understand the proceedings, and aid in his or her own defense. This, however, does not have anything to do with the person’s willingness to do any of these things. It is important to consider the competency of someone on trial to be fair to the defendant and uphold a positive image for the criminal justice system. Convicting someone who doesn’t understand what is going on makes the legal system look bad. Defendants are assumed to be “competent unless proven incompetent.”
There were several things that I learned in this chapter that I had never considered previously. An interesting aspect of this label made evident in the chapter is that being found to be competent to stand trial does not mean that someone is at a level of normal mental functioning or health. I also was intrigued by the number of defendants that are evaluated for competency every year, which came out to be more than 5% of all felons. Prisoners who return to competency and are sentenced to death, they must also be competent at the time of their execution. It is unlawful to execute someone who does not understand the reason. This evaluation of competency has a lower threshold than competency to stand trial does.
Insanity, on the other hand, refers to the state of the defendants mind at the time of the crime. It is a question of whether or not someone knows right from wrong. This particular defense was created because it does not serve much of a purpose to punish someone who cannot be held responsible for his or her actions. Convictions serve to provide retribution or to deter crime. The chapter also discusses the concept of mens rea, which we have discussed at length in my other class. Mens rea is one of the seven characteristics of crime. Someone must have a “guilty mind” or be acting with intent for their acts to be considered a crime. This guilty state of mind must occur at the same time of the crime.
In the case of both competency and insanity, we must be cautious of malingering, or exaggerating, or even faking, symptoms of illness. Defendants could possibly fake amnesia, schizophrenia, or dissociative identity disorder in order to make it seem as though they are incompetent or insane. It is difficult to detect, but there are specific techniques used to help expose the truth, such as Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms test. In the event that a defendant is successful in making a court think he or she is incompetent or insane, the defendant is often still institutionalized and treated for the symptoms.
Terms: competent, competent to stand trial, insanity, mens rea, retribution, deterrence, malingering, Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms
These chapters focused on the difference between competency to stand trial, and the insanity defense. Firstly, as we have already looked at before, competency is a legal not a psychological term in which evaluates whether or not a suspect is able to stand trial. Sometimes, through medication processes the perpetrator eventually can be found to be competent and then indeed stand trial. In turn competency is a rather ambiguous terms. As the court system has defined for example in the cases of Cooper v. Oklahoma, and Medina v. California even before the court proceedings begin a presumption of CST is already established. That is to state, defendants are presumed to be competent to stand trial unless proven to be otherwise. Further it’s the defenses responsibility to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is not competent.
As stated before however being it is a legal and not a psychological term the ambiguous nature in how “competency” and “justice” is defined come into question. In order to prove the defendant is incompetent it must be beyond the preponderance of the evidence. This means that the judge must determine whether or not with at least 51 percent certainty that the defendant is incompetent. However, it becomes obvious this is controversial. Firstly the judge only has to prove a little over 50 percent, to prove competency and his judgment as to whether or not they are competent may be controversial. Further, experts themselves in the legal field may disagree with one another in a particular case. For example one expert could claim competency and the other not. Further, a flexible standard comes into question. That is to state whether or not the seriousness of the crime influences at all the judgment of the defendant’s competence. For example does the difference in first degree murder, and burglary change how much the defendant must understand the complexity and seriousness of his/her crimes than someone facing lesser charges. This with the fact that only 50 percent certainty is needed to determine competency questions the ethics and whether or not the severity of the crime influence the threshold of competence.
Although controversial usually criminals can be found competent to stand trial. Often with antipsychotic medication and restoring competency of the criminal for the foreseeable future a trail indeed can occur. This then leads to the other side of the debate in terms of insanity. Insanity is referring to the criminal’s state of mind at the time of the crime. However, insanity like competency is somewhat ambiguous as well. The terms “insanity” does not specifically relate to one specific mental illness so expert testimony although influential in some cases, can be conflicted when experts try to explain someone else’s mental state.
As for the term “insanity” it also gets portrayed negatively to the general consensus of the public. Sometimes it can be labeled as a loop hole in the justice system, and that it’s not “just” however, as found out from the text only about a single percent use the insanity plea, and very little defendants are successful.
Several processes to the insanity defense have been cultivated. Historically insanity crimes were approached on a retribution approach or a “eye for an eye.” However this was not entirely “just.” Instead it transformed to a more influential deterrence approach. In this sense using general deterrence would make other criminals see the judgment of their crimes and help to avoid future crimes, hence to “deter.” However, with insanity this approach is flawed. Deterrence does not work if mens rea, and actus rea are not in accordance. In this sense an insane person who does not have “mastery of the mind” may not understand that there actions were wrong, so the deterrence approach is somewhat flawed. As a result determining whether or not someone was indeed insane became important and the M’Naghten rule, irresistible impulse, and Durham rule were put in place.
Just as competency terminology to stand trial was ambiguous, as is the terminology for insanity. This is what I found to be most interesting in the chapter. Firstly, as we all know the justice system although you are entitled to a “speedy trial” takes time. After your arraignment it may be several weeks, months or even a year before your trial (if your case makes it to trial.) this then raises questions in terms of processes we have discussed during the semester. Often insanity cases are evaluated in retrospect, however lots may have changed between the crime occurrence and the trial. As a result insanity may have to be proven from past events determined on police records, witnesses, interrogations and so forth. And we all know that memory and problems with the interview process are controversial in their own right, which could lead to problems for proving and or disproving insanity.
Perhaps most interestingly as well was again this concept of the juror in which we have evaluated the entire semester. As we have seen many things get “left for the jury to decide, and debate about.” In the case of insanity often times the ambiguous terms such as to determine right from wrong, “understand” and other terms may be understood differently juror to juror. Further, jurors also tend to agree with experts which also becomes controversial in its own right.
Perhaps most interesting was the case of Kenneth Bianchi which puts most of the concepts and problems of insanity into perspective. Kenneth was an example of malingering or a sense of faking psychotic symptoms. In this case Kenneth faked an alter ego “steve” and two psychologists determined incorrectly that he had an alter ego and that Kenneth was not aware of Steve’s actions. In this case he filed an insanity plea, but later pleaded guilty after Martin Orne discovered he faked his symptoms. This case however, is beneficial in studying and understanding the insanity process. When he successfully faked his symptoms of split personality he demonstrated that experts often disagree in there diagnosis, as that two said he had split personality and another disproved it. It also leads to a breakdown of the negative stigma that the public has to the insanity plea. Often times even when criminals successfully avoid prison through Malingering they succumb to long and immediate mental hospital treatment.
Overall this was the most interesting thing I learned. Often times the stereotypes of the insanity plea are incorrect, however changing those perspectives are very difficult. I would say my own opinion has not changed. It’s been my opinion that mental illness although different should be treated somewhat the same in terms of justice. That is to say just as criminals can have parole, mental illness patients should be allowed to be released if medication can suppress the symptoms. Although many people may disagree with me that has always been my two cents on the issue.
Terms: insanity, competency, Cooper v. Oklahoma, Medina v. California, CST, preponderance of the evidence, antipsychotic medication, foreseeable future, Mens rea, actus rea, retribution, deterrence, M’Naghten rule, irresistible impulse, Durham rule, jury, Kenneth Bianchi, Malingering, flexible standard.
Chapters 8 and 9 were very interesting. What made them interesting was what the chapters talked about. Chapter 8 focused on how our legal system decides if someone is mentally sane enough to take trial, while chapter 9 focuses on the use of the insanity defense in our legal system today. These were both very interesting chapter. To start off, I am going to summarize chapter 8. Chapter 8 starts off with the story about Russell Weston Jr. Russell walked into Capitol Hill and ended up shooting a couple of detectives before finally being captured. After he was it was found that Russell has a mental illness. He was eventually diagnosed with Paranoid schizophrenia, which is a serious mental illness whose suffers lose touch with reality. The chapter continues on to talk about how people with paranoid schizophrenia have auditory hallucinations (they hear voices that tell them to do things), as well as thought disorder and delusions. The chapter continues on telling about how Russell thought that President Clinton was a part of the communist conspiracy to take over Washington. As well as what he said after the shootings. It included the fact that he alone could stop the country from all the cannibals and communist. So what does this all have to do with the mentally insane? Obviously Russell committed a crime that resulted in the death of a couple of individuals. However, the way that it deals with our legal system is that if someone isn’t in the right state of mind when they committed the offense, is it necessarily the right thing to do to send them to prison. Instead the legal system thinks that it is better for that person to get the mental help that he/she needs in a mental hospital rather than some prison where they will continue thinking the weird thoughts that they do. The chapter next talks about competence. Competence refers to the whether or not the individual has sufficient present ability to perform necessary personal and legal functions. This is basically asking the question is the person able to think rationally and create a good defense for her/himself. To go along with competence, the book talks about how our legal system runs test to see if an individual is competent to stand trial. This evaluation is commonly known as competency to stand trial (CST). What CST means is that a person should be able to understand the wrongs that he/she committed and be able to participate in his/her defense of the charges. This leads into some trouble though. How do we tell if a person is mentally competent or not? This is a big topic when it comes to the use of legal defense of insanity that we see in chapter 9. The chapter mentions a Supreme Court case that back up the fact that a person must be competent to face serious charges otherwise they should be recommended to a mental hospital. The Supreme Court case was Dusky v. United States. The chapter continues on talking about other Supreme Court cases that the United States has had that has supported the judgment that a person much be competent in order to be prosecuted to the fullest of the law. Things such as the presumption of CST and preponderance of the evidence have all been things that have evolved because of Supreme Court cases about competence and the ability to take the stand. The chapter continues on to talk about how a person must be competent in order to waive certain rights such as the right of an attorney. Chapter 8 talk’s about how a person must plead guilty/waive his/her rights knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. If a person isn’t able to think for themselves then he/she should be treated a little differently when it comes to the legal system itself. The next thing that chapter 8 talks about is how our criminal justice system deals with incompetent defendants. The chapters continues on to talk about how that sometimes it is necessary for the defendant to go under psychiatric evaluation and that the defense will sometimes bring in experts to talk about the defendants mental state during and after the crime. The book talks about how if they believe that the person is not competent, the judge can order and evaluation of the person’s mental state with something called a Bona Fide Doubt! This is basically the fact that there is some doubt about the mental health of the individual to defend him/herself. The next thing that the chapter talks about is the characteristics of incompetent defense and how the legal system treats adolescents when it comes to incompetence. When it comes to Adolescents, it talks more about whether or not a child is capable of going to court for a very serious crime. The next thing that the chapter talks about is the right of the person to refuse treatment and CST. However, sometimes as seen in previous discussions the person cannot really make up a good mental process on their own. The final things that the chapter talks about are the competency of an individual to be executed and the process of test that our legal system uses to decide whether someone is criminally insane or not. These tests include things such as Fitness interview Test-Revised and Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with mental Retardation. The final thing that the chapter talks about is a thing called Malingering. This is the process where someone actually fakes being mentally ill to go to trial. This is something that is a big problem and is also the reason for why we have so many different tests that a person must go through before being called criminally insane. There are also tests that actually test whether or not someone is actually faking being criminally insane. Chapter 9 talks about the use of insanity as a defense in a criminal case. The example that the chapter starts with is the Andre Yates who drowned five of her children for being a bad mother. Chapter talks about the trial of Andre Yates. The book talks about how there two main issues were facing the court; the fact that she had killed five children and the fact of whether or not she was competent to face trial. Chapter 9 continues to talk about the definition of insanity. The definition of insanity is the mental state of the individual at the time the crime was committed. The chapter finally tells us that Yates was diagnosed with postpartum mental illness. What that means is that she is severally depressed. The next thing that the chapter talks about is the evolution of insanity in law. It talks about how the fact that the law is the retribution aspect of the law that talks about how the goal of our legal system is to punish individuals. The book next talks about how the use of the mental defenses dates all the way back to the Roman Empire; the fact that if a person was found to be non compos mentis (without mastery of mind) they shouldn’t be held accountable for their crimes. The next thing that the book talks about are three important cases that helped the use of insanity in our legal system. The three cases were The M’Naghten Case, The Durham Case, and the Hickley Case. All of these cases were instances where the individual was found not guilty on the basis of insanity and they were eventually given the medical care that they needed. The next thing that the book talks about is the fact that our legal system has been constantly trying to get the use of the insanity plea a little clearer. Now a day, there is a thing called guilty but mentally ill. This is the process that a person might have a little idea about what they are doing, however, they are still mentally ill and should get treatment. The next thing that the book talks about is the Twinkie defense, where basically a guy named Dan White ate to much junk food that led him into a depression where he then decided to shoot and kill the mayor and Harvey Milk. The next thing that chapter 9 talks about are the test and techniques that are used to decide whether or not someone is insane or not and how juries view the criminal defense by insanity plea. The final thing that chapter 9 talks about is the larger context of insanity law. The information that I found most interesting was when it talked about how insanity in defense goes all the way back to the Romans. The thing is called non compos mentis. This is something that I found very surprising because it gives some validity to the use of mentally insane as a defense. The next thing that I found surprising was the thing called the Twinkie Defense. I would have never imagined the fact that eating junk food could lead to someone being depressed enough to go shoot the mayor and two individuals. I know for a fact that I love eating junk food and it makes me happy not all that much sad. These two things were things that surprised me. The thing that I found most interesting was the Andre Yates trial. I could not imagine drowning five kids. It was something that I could really sick after reading because of the fact that I could never imagine doing such a thing to children. All the information that I wrote down was stuff that I learned. I knew that people sometime decided to fake being mentally ill to get off from doing a crime; however, I never knew that it actually had a legal term. I also didn’t know that there were tests that can be conducted to actually test whether or not someone is mentally ill or not. The final thing that I do know now after reading the chapter is that there are a bunch of tests that are conducted to test whether or not someone is really criminally insane and whether or not that person does the crime knowingly. My view on the insanity plea hasn’t really changed. I am glad to see that there are actual tests that can be done to tell whether or not someone is criminally insane. I also like the fact that there a lot of Supreme Court cases that have helped the development of insanity as a legal term. I personally believe that if our overall goal as a legal system is to make sure that people learn and become better for doing their crimes, it makes no sense for us to send mentally ill people to prison because they won’t get any better. However, I do think that if a person kills someone while being mentally ill, they shouldn’t be let out of the places that they are being held. Overall, these were two very interesting chapters.
Terms. Twinkie defense, called guilty but mentally ill, non compos mentis, retribution, postpartum mental illness, insanity, Malingering, Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with mental Retardation, Fitness interview Test-Revised, Bona Fide Doubt, knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, presumption of CST, competence, competency to stand trial (CST)., Paranoid schizophrenia, thought disorder and delusions.
Chapter 8 discussed the issue of competence and how best to handle this. Competence and competency to stand trial (CST) are demonstrated in real life cases, such as the “Capitol Shooter” and Milton Dusky. Basically, CST is an evaluation by forensic psychologists prior to the trial, which decides whether or not a person is able to adequately participate in their own defense. An interesting thing I learned while reading this chapter was from page 165, when Dusky appealed his case to the Supreme Court. CST is based not on the criminal’s sanity at the time of the crime, but actually their present state. Previously, I had always figured that a criminal’s state of mind remained the same from crime all the way up to trial. But now, reading this, I know that people may have been under the influence of drugs or had an untreated mental disorder, etc. The simple wording in this is the crucial difference between CST (a criminal’s present state of mind) and the insanity plea (a criminal’s state of mind during the crime).
Chapter 9 talks about this further, discussing the insanity plea and different cases that have shaped the meaning of this. I’ve never really been too fond of the insanity plea, because I believe that criminals committing such “hard” crimes (i.e. murder, rape, etc.) really cannot be fixed. The difference of sending to a hospital versus a prison is not going to fix anything. However, I did agree more with the book’s paragraph on the “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) verdict. For some reason, I prefer it over the insanity plea, most likely because it still has the word “guilty” in it. Insane or not, I believe that criminal is still guilty.
Reading these two chapters has definitely changed my view of the insanity plea and competency to stand trial. A big one that changed my view was in Chapter 8, discussing the restoration of competency. It had never occurred to me that a person’s competency can be restored, so I found this really interesting. I always figured that once you’re deemed insane, there is no fix for that. In this chapter, I learned that a criminal can be granted a period of time to restore CST and stay in a mental facility. However, this isn’t a guaranteed fix obviously.
Another part of these chapters that I found interesting and changed my view of insanity and CST was in Chapter 9. It was always my assumption that many criminals were using the insanity plea to their advantage by faking/exaggerating psychological disorders to get a lesser sentence. The book refers to this as malingering and, after reading that paragraph, I now know that this isn’t a good idea for a criminal. The court system will just postpone your trial while attempting to restore your competency, instead of granting you a lesser sentence or finding you “not guilty.” Also, I found an interesting statistic from Chapter 9: the insanity plea is used in fewer than 1% of all felony cases, and fails about 75% of the time. This is definitely a surprising fact to me!
Key Terms: Competence, Competency to Stand Trial (CST), Insanity, Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI) verdict, Malingering, Restoration of Competency
In chapter 8 and 9 it talks about Competency to stand Trial and Insanity. CST is where they do an evaluation to see if you have the mental competency to stand trial and defend yourself or state facts and understand all the aspects of the case. Defendants are deemed to be competent unless proved that they are incompetent. Competency has to do with the legal side of things and Insanity has to do with the psychology side. Insanity is evaluated by how sane you were at the time of the crime; insanity can only be claimed when you know that they were indeed insane at the time of the crime committed.
A person that is competent to stand trial and is sentenced to death, it is illegal for them to kill someone who does not understand why they are being executed. The evaluation of competency for the death sentence is a lower standard than the evaluation of CST. Determining what is right and wrong is hard for people who are diagnosed with insanity.
What interested me in chapter 8 is where they linked CST to adolescence. Should they be CST? They do not thoroughly understand the terms of the justice systems so I feel as if they should not be, because it is even hard for me to understand fully what is going on. It can also be really nerve racking in the courtroom and having a bunch of adults staring at you would be hard to form sentences to begin with or to recall memory. Another thing that I thought was interesting about competency is that the judge decides whether someone is competent or not and they only have to be 50/50 sure that they are.
Chapter 9 talks about the Insanity defense, which to me is a joke, but in some scenarios it could very well be the case. It is very hard to prove that you were indeed insane at the time of the crime, I learned a little bit about this in my Clinical Psychology class last semester. The insanity defense is rarely used, but in the times that it is the person that has committed say a murder, claims that someone was telling them to do it such as God. Or they really think that the person was going to hurt them and so they act out of paranoia. The people who abuse the insanity defense are those who give it a bad name and a bad reputation. Some people I do genuinely think that they need help and medication.
Those people who lie their way through the justice system by claiming that they are insane, are not just put back on the street they are put into an institution and treated for the condition that they said they had at the time of the crime. Like I said earlier it is unfortunate that people use these mental illnesses as a way out because some people truly do need help and need the proper treatment to know what is right and what is wrong.
There have been many cases where people have lied and gotten away with it, these are the cases that make the insanity plea bad.
I have learned that competency to stand trial is something that is a current state of mind where insanity is a previous state of mind. I thought that these chapters were very interesting and it makes me feel like it is really unfortunate that people try and take advantage of the justice system and find an easy way out with a condition that some people actually do need help with. I think it would be very difficult to determine whether someone was insane at the time of the crime because of all the testing that would have to take place.
Terms: Competency to stand trial (CST), insanity, insanity defense, clinical psychology, Competency, and mental illness
Chapter eight talks about competency to stand trial. There are many different mental disorders that can affect a person’s competency to stand trial. Some of these include schizophrenia, where they may experience delusions and hallucinations. What it means to be able to stand trial, is essentially and simply the ability to understand what is going on during the court proceedings, and understand what is said by people such as their lawyer and judge. This requires a substantial amount of knowledge and no physical or mental impairment that may affect their ability to stand trial. The Dusky standard which originated from the court decision of Dusky v. United States means that “sufficient present ability to consult with their attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understand whether they have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” The legal definition of competence refers to whether an individual has sufficient present ability to perform necessary present ability to perform necessary person of legal functions. The preponderance of the evidence is when the judge must be at least 50% certain that the defendant is incompetent. Whenever someone suspects the defendant has competency issue, or a bona fide, psychological evaluations are used. Some evaluations include the MMPI2 or FAI. Sometimes collateral sources of information , or information from a third party are used to evaluate competency. As a group, people who are incompetent generally have mental disorders, have a history of drug use, and have been charged with less serious crimes. Younger children also are more likely to be incompetent than older children. Restoration of competency can be done by placing the person in a mental institution for as long as the judge feels right, or the foreseeable future, when the person is competent again. Antipsychotic medication can also be used to restore competency. One downside to competency in court is malingering, where the person exaggerates their impairment to get off easier for their crime they committed. All in all, this chapter talks a lot about competency and what makes a person unable to stand trial. Psychological evaluations are goods ways to evaluate if a person is competent, but it also can make it easier for some people to have a lesser punishment for incompetency, when they are not disabled in any way. It surprised me the most to learn about who is most likely to plead incompetency. Incompetency is a good thing when the person is seriously unable to understand what is going on in the trial.
Chapter eight nine about the insanity defense, and what it is. It starts off by talking about Andrea Yates, whose trial was one of the most controversial and biggest insanity cases in the United States. Almost all of the people who are considered insane have a mental illness. They are often evaluated for a mental illness by a clinical psychologist. The difference between ¬insanity and ¬incompetency is that incompetency is the person’s state of mind during the trial and insanity the state of mind during the crime. If a person did not at the time of the crime realize what they were doing was wrong, retribution would be pointless to give to the criminal. Deterrence perspective on the punishment suggests that an individual offender should be punished so that she or she learns that committing a crime that leads to punishment. In other words, criminals no matter who they are should get punished. The person must be able to understand what they did was wrong in order to be tried. People who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are often placed in psychiatric facilities for life. In order to be considered insane, the person often has to take many cognitive tests. Ultimate issue testimonies are important because it gives expert advice to the judge, even though they are not allowed to give their personal opinion. Many past court cases dealing with people who were considered insane showed that many of the people had cognitive difficulties and volitional difficulties. It is often hard to distinguish if a crime was -premeditated or not, and the cause for the crime. Some tests can be used to pinpoint a possible mental illness that may have made the criminal insane such as the Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation and the Roger Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scale, which focus in on the persons mental state at the time of the crime. Malingering is often a setback and reason people try to declare insanity. This chapter shocked me when it talked about how hard it really is to be declared insane, and why Andrea Yates was. Insanity defense like incompetency defense is a good thing when it a person needs it. However I do feel like people can use it as an excuse to get away with a big crime.
Key Words: Schizophrenia, delusions, hallucinations, Dusky, standard competence, preponderance of the evidence , MMPI2 , FAI, bona fide, collateral sources of information, foreseeable future, antipsychotic medication, malingering, clinical psychologist, insanity, ¬incompetency ,retribution ,Deterrence perspective, not guilty by reason of insanity, cognitive tests, Ultimate issue testimonies, cognitive difficulties, volitional difficulties, Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation ,Roger Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scale
Chapter eight is about competency to stand trial, CST. The concerns for competency are fairness to the defendant and respect for the justice system. The defendant needs to be able to understand what is going on in the court system and be able to do certain duties (i.e. plead guilty, waive a trial by jury, testify, accept plea bargain if offered). CST is a legal concept and has functions, these include: understand current legal situation, understand the charges against them, understand the pleas available, understand the possible penalties if they are convicted, understand the roles of the judge, defense counsel, and prosecutor, trust and communicate with defense counsel, help locate witnesses, aid in developing a strategy for cross-examining witnesses, act appropriately during the trial, and make appropriate decisions about trial strategy. Some believe the CST should be made a flexible standard, meaning whether a defendant facing very serious charges in a case with complex facts may need to be more competent than someone facing less serious charges and a simpler legal proceeding.
How the criminal justice system deals with incompetence defendants is with CST evaluations. There must be a bona fide doubt or a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s competency in order for an evaluation process to be ordered. One or more mental health professionals would be asked to interview the defendant, administer psychological tests, review the defendants history, and write a report, which would summarize the evaluation of the client explaining whether or not they believe the client is able to stand trial. Some characteristics of an incompetent defendant would include: live on the fringes of society, history of mental illness, history of drug abuse, charges of less serious crimes, be socially isolated, unmarried, unemployed, poorly educated, below average intelligence. Some of the most common mental health problems diagnosed in defendants found to be incompetent are: psychotic illnesses, severe affective disorders, and mental retardation. Children may also be incompetent, however this topic is very controversial, due to their intellectual immaturity, and adolescent defendants may lack sufficient understanding of the criminal justice system and lack the ability to interact effectively with their attorneys.
Chapter nine is about the insanity defense, or the principle that people who commit crimes without full awareness should not be held fully responsible for their actions. (This chapter starts with Andrea Yates case, but that is the topic of discussion for next blog, so I will begin right after that). The evolution of the insanity law can be traced back several centuries. It is fundamental to most legal systems. Many believe it is immoral to convict and punish people who are not responsible for their criminal behavior. The retribution perspective suggests that the punishment for a crime should be proportionate to the harm committed. On the other hand, the deterrence perspective suggests that an individual offender should be punished so he or she learns committing a crime leads to punishment, and so other individuals will learn from their mistakes.
Just like for those who are incompetent to stand trial, there are tests and techniques used for assessing if someone is insane, or in need of the insanity defense. It first involves a retrospective evaluation of the individual’s mental state at the time of the crime. By the time of the assessment the defendant may have been treated with medication or therapy and the effects of substances that may have been preset at the time of the crime might have worn off, so a mental health professional needs to assess them having the time of the crime in mind. Second, the legal elements are much harder to define. It is difficult to assess whether or not a person has the ability to control his or her actions or know the difference between right and wrong. Lastly, there are many variations in states’ insanity standards. This makes it exceptionally difficult to design a psychological instrument specific for assessing insanity.
In both of these cases on may malinger, or fake, the fact that they are incompetent or insane in order to get a punishment that is not so harsh. However, if one is faking it they may end up in a secure mental health hospital, which some may consider a better place than prison; some may say it is worse. I would hope most people do not fake this, but one can never be fully aware of that fact. I guess in a way I would feel sorry for those who need to be in a secure mental health hospital and are placed in jail, but not vice versa. Those who put themselves in there did it somewhat knowingly. In that case I would feel bad for the patients who are receiving help and are stuck in there with criminals who need to be in jail and not in a mental health ward.
Terms: Competency to Stand Trial, Flexible Standard, Bona Fide Doubt, Evaluation Process, Psychological Test, Psychotic Illness, Severe Affective Disorders, Mental Retardation, Insanity Defense, Insanity Law, Retribution Perspective, Deterrence Perspective, Mental Health Hospital
Competency is a legal term used to describe a defendant’s ability to stand trial. A few set of concerns is what is behind competency to stand trial. One involves being fair to the defendant. If defendants cannot provide information to their lawyers and aid with the investigation then it would not be a fair trial. They also need to be able to decide what to plead in a trial as well as understand exactly what is going on in a trial. Defendant’s need to be capable enough to know the process of the trial as well as the consequences of it may be. If a defendant does not understand these things they may be found incompetent to stand trial.
CST refers to the state of the defendant at the time of the trial (not at the time of the crime). Defendants are competent until proven incompetent. Competence is determined by a psychologist of social worker. If they determine the defendant to be incompetent more often than not the judge will agree. CST also refers to guilty pleas and waiving an attorney. Defendants must understand exactly what this means and if they don’t it would not be a fair trial. Some attorneys argue that any defendant who refuses an attorney is incompetent.
After 1971 some tests were created in order to aid in the process of determining whether someone is competent. These tests include forensic assessment instruments, MMPI-2, and the competency screening test. Since there is no gold standard to determine competence, evaluations can be difficult. Another difficulty is prosecuting teenagers as adults. Young adults’ competency is different than a grown adult so they must be assessed differently.
Another issue in evaluation competency is malingering. Malingering is a term used to describe someone who is faking or exaggerating symptoms in order to get the outcome that they want. Defendants might malinger incompetent in order to delay jail time or in order to delay the trial (attorneys may call for a competency evaluation for the same reasons). Over all malingering is usually caught and does not help the defendant.
Insanity is a very controversial issue in the legal system. Insanity refers to the criminal’s state at the time of the crime (not at the time of the trial). As with competency, insanity is not a psychological term but a legal one.
Insanity is used on the basis that they people that did not understand that they crime they were committing was wrong should not be punished fully for their actions. This goes along with retribution and deterrence. This means that if a person does not understand the rights and wrongs of their crime a harsh punishment will not help them.
Insanity has many different requirements among different states. And the definition can be quite complex. Some states have added irresistible impulse and volitional capacity in determining a suspect’s insanity. Also there are ways around insanity. For example if a defendant is not found to be insane the can be found guilty but mentally ill. These defendants still go to prison for the whole length of the time determined by their crime but they receive help while in prison or are transferred to a mental health facility. Some states also allow defendants to plead diminished capacity if not found insane. Mental health professionals can also testify that the defendant lacked the capacity to form the specific intent to kill the victim.
Problems with insanity also are found in the jury’s perception of it. A jury’s reasoning is much more complex than a simple definition. And some may not understand the full intent of pleading insane.
As with competency, there are test to determine insanity. Such as: the mental state at the time of offense screening evaluation and Rodgers criminal responsibility assessment scale. These test aid a professional in determining the state of mind of the criminal but the tests still involve some level of interpretation.
I found that different states classify insanity differently interesting. I just always assumed the legal system worked the same way in all states. And this could also cause some problems since there isn’t an overall understanding with insanity. I knew a lot about insanity and competency from previous classes. I always kind of put them under the same umbrella though. I thought the main difference between them was just that competency was at the time of trial and insanity was at the time of the crime. I did not know that there were many other underlying factors that made them very different from each other.
Terms: Competency, insanity, attorney, psychologist, mental health facility, mental state at the time of offense screening evaluation, Rodgers criminal responsibility assessment scale, defendant, suspect, irresistible impulse, volitional capacity, Malingering, forensic assessment instruments, MMPI-2, competency screening test
Chapter 8 was about CST (competency to stand trial). Reading this chapter cleared up a lot of the blurriness between CST and the insanity defense. The chapter begins with a discussion on the meaning of competency to stand trial and goes over the Dusky Standard. One of the main points made in this discussion is that a competent defendant must be competent at the time of trial. Eight functional elements of CST are listed and a discussion of CST vs competency to plead guilty and waive an attorney follows. Next in the chapter, a section is dedicated to discuss how incompetent individuals are dealt with. CST evaluations, ultimate issue expert testimonies, common characteristics of incompetent defendants, incompetent adolescents, restoration of competency, the right to refuse treatment are all under this section. Multiple tests used to asses CST are discussed next in chapter 8. Tests such as the Fitness Interview Test-Revised and the Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation are given focus. Finally, the chapter brings up the term “malingering” and discusses how this can be a problem when it comes to CST.
Chapter 9 was similar to chapter 8 but discussed the insanity defense. The chapter opened with an interesting summary of Andrea Yates’ crimes and her trial. The evolution of the insanity law was given focus next and two important topics were covered there: retribution and deterrence. The chapter then went over three important cases that helped shape the history of the insanity law: 1) the M’Naghten case 2) The Durham Case and 3) The Hinckley Case. The discussion of guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) and Mens Rea Defenses followed the Hinckley Case. How jurors define insanity was the title of the next section in chapter 9 and it was found that jurors use their own definitions in judging whether or not an individual is guilty by reason of insanity. A section discussing tests that are used to assess insanity followed. Focus was given to the Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation and the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales. Chapter 9 also included a section on malingering and how it can be a problem in the insanity defense. Finally, the chapter wrapped up with a discussion of insanity laws and popular myths and misconceptions about the insanity defense.
I think the thing that most surprised me was the discussion at the end of chapter 9 regarding the insanity defense. Many statistics and facts were listed here and I was shocked by most of them. Like the majority of people typically think, I thought the insanity defense was used a lot more often than it supposedly is and I also wrongly believed it was used mainly for violent crimes such as murder. I also believed that psychologists didn’t agree very much on how to define insanity and how to properly diagnose someone as having a particular psychological disease. However, the discussion at the end of chapter 9 proves me wrong. I did not know any of the statistics or facts presented at the end of the chapter before reading it!
From reading this discussion, my views of the insanity defense have changed. Even though I’m interested in psychology, I wrongly believed that the insanity defense was used commonly to get cold-blooded criminals “off-the-hook.” I didn’t disagree or argue with people who claimed that the insanity defense was an “easy way out.” Apparently, this defense is not used near as often as most people think; it is just highly publicized when it is used. In addition, the individuals who do receive a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity can apparently spend more time locked up in an institution than some guilty individuals spend locked up in prison.
If we relate this all back to psychology, we can clearly see how clinical psychologists are important. Obviously clinical psychologists are the ones who help determine whether or not a defendant is competent, insane, or has a diagnosable mental illness. We know from the reading that psychologists have to be present to administer many of the tests that were discussed in the two chapters including, but not limited to, the MMPI. In addition, we can see how developmental psychologists might be important when thinking about incompetent adolescents. We can also see how cognitive psychology is relevant to the insanity defense because part of the definition of the insanity defense has to do with how the individual thinks; whether or not they think what they did was right or wrong.
Lastly, we can see how social psychology is relevant to the insanity defense if we look at jurors. Many studies have been conducted that correlate individual decision making with group decision making. We can see how one juror may be leaning another direction in terms of whether or not the defendant was legally insane while all the other jurors believe something different. Psychologically speaking, it may be difficult for the “outsider” to voice his/her opinion and to better fit in with the majority, he or she may just agree with the group. This type of situation may also be present when discussing psychological evaluations done by clinical psychologists. The defendant in an insanity defense case obviously sees numerous psychologists who determine whether or not he was insane and whether or not he has a diagnosable illness, say, schizophrenia. If four psychologists believe he has paranoid schizophrenia and the fifth psychologist is aware of this, he may be much more likely to diagnose the defendant with paranoid schizophrenia.
Terms: CST, insanity defense, Dusky Standard, expert testimonies, Fitness Interview Test-Revised, Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation, malingering, retribution, deterrence, M’Naghten case, Durham Case, Hinckley Case, guilty but mentally ill, Mens Rea Defenses, Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation, Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales
Provide a list of psychological and legal terms you used at the bottom of your post
Chapter 8, on competency to stand trial, or CST was the most interesting to me. First it explained what exactly is CST. Although I did the basics of CST, like it’s not about the mental state when the crime took place (that’s insanity) but it is the mental state when they are supposed to be put on trial. However, it is just that they are competent; they have to understand what is going on at every stage of the criminal justice process. When I first read this, I thought, I don’t even know what goes on at every stage of the criminal justice process, I have never been in court before and I haven’t taken a class that focuses in-depth on that. This raised my concern on how they necessarily test of competence.
Later in the chapter however my questions were answered and I learned a lot!
I learned that there aren’t necessary guidelines evaluators have to follow in order to test for competence. What I thought was surprising about this though was that people didn’t believe that since it was a “legal” term that psychologists should not be the ones deciding whether or not someone is CST. I think (as a psychologist) this is an awful argument they should be having. We study this type of stuff yet they think we shouldn’t be evaluating these people, we are trained to do that (sorry had to vent)!
A few of the tests I learned about were: Fitness Interview Test-Revised, this test was used to assess both legal and psychopathology knowledge. Another test is Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial Instrument is a 18- item assessment semi-structured interview to assess the defendants factual knowledge of the court room. A third I learned was Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation; it uses not only multiple choice but also responses as well about basic legal requirements. The last test I learned about is a 272 question assessment to view the defendants psychological functioning, this test is known as the Computer-Assisted Determination of Competence to Proceed.
Other things discussed in this chapter were, refusal of treatment for CST, restoration of competency, and also different cases that gave examples of these things throughout the chapter.
The next chapter I read, was about insanity. Like I mentioned earlier, this is looking at the mental state of the defendant at the time the crime was committed. Something interesting talked about in this chapter was the idea of retribution, which is basically like the saying “an eye for an eye”. The perspective punishment suggests that the punishment for a crime should be proportionate to the harm committed. However, this raises a question, if the person is insane do they know that the act the committed was wrong? It also talks about different cases through history such as the M’Naghten Case and the Durham Case that have shaped how we view and reason if someone is insane. However the one that was used to satisfy everyone is called the ALI. The ALI was adopted by 26 states and includes aspects of both listed above.
This chapter also talks about different tests that are used in order to potentially view a defendant as insane.
Something I found interesting was that although the courts want to make the decision of whether or not the defendant was insane a black or white judgment, jurors view it differently. They look to make a more broader assessment of whether the person was insane at the time of the crime or not.
Although this chapter was very interesting to me, it didn’t really change my views of insanity. I think insanity is something that is very hard to determine. It’s hard to weigh being insane with let’s say taking a bunch of innocent peoples life. I think no matter what people have committed crimes under insanity need to be in a mental health facility getting help and overcoming their disease so it doesn’t happen in the future.
Terms: ALI, M’Naghten Case, Durham Case, Competency, Insanity, Fitness Interview Test-Revised, Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial Instrument, Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation, Computer-Assisted Determination of Competence to Proceed, retribution
In chapter 8, the main topic was competency to stand trial. I knew the basics of this term were whether the defendant was able to understand their actions and the consequences that come along with them, as well as the person’s ability at the time of trial to understand what was happening. I also was aware of presumption competency, which is the fact that unless proven otherwise you are deemed competent by the courts. I had not thought about the detailed fact that a defendant must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent with their guilty plea. A scary thought to me is that a judge only needs to be 50% certain that someone is incompetent; they find this by the preponderance of the evidence. It seems that a person with high enough intelligence would be able to fake incompetency, or at least enough to get over 50% by a judge. I also realize that a ruling of being incompetent to stand trial is a very serious thing, and that judges do not just give them away for no reason. This also would make it possible for a judge to identify malingering. Flexible standard is not a term that I had heard at all; the book said that it was a very controversial topic; which only makes sense. If someone commits a serious crime (like a murder) and they are deemed incompetent, there should be more scrutiny and more evaluation than someone who committed a lesser felony (stealing or assault). I also was not aware that once deemed incompetent, there is a process that evaluates whether competency can be restored within the foreseeable future (4-18 months). Restoration of competency can come in several ways, for example antipsychotic medications, hospital treatment, or therapy. I also did not realize that there were so many ways to measure competency, I was aware of the MMPI, but there are tests that are geared specifically towards competency screening (FIT-R, ECST-R, CAD-COMP, CAST-MR). Each test is used for something different there are tests to determine competency of defendants whom are mentally retarded (CAST-MR), there are tests that asses legal knowledge and intelligence (FIT-R), assessment of psychological functioning (CAD- COMP) and tests that specifically asses the logistics of a courtroom hearing (ECST-R).
The Andrea Yates trial has always been disturbing to me, the brutality of it, as well as how she was absolutely positive that her children dying was the best possible thing for them. The difference between competence and insanity is that competence is at the time of the trial and insanity is at the time of the crime. In Andrea Yates’ case she was diagnosed with postpartum mental illness, which is when a mother experiences one or multiple negative symptoms after childbirth. Over half experience postpartum blues (baby blues), about 15% experience postpartum depression (similar to clinical depression) and less than one percent experience postpartum psychosis (include auditory hallucinations, delusions, and severe depression). As I read, I wondered if a woman is more susceptible to postpartum depression if she experienced depression before her pregnancy. In order to be found guilty of a crime a defendant must have a “guilty mind” or mens rea: this is the ability to recognize that their act was wrong.
Terms: Competency to stand trial, presumption competency, knowing, voluntary, intelligent, preponderance of the evidence, flexible standard, restoration of competency to stand trial, foreseeable future, antipsychotic medication, therapy, hospitalization, MMPI, competency screening, ECST-R, CAD-COMP, CAST-MR, FIT-R, malingering, insanity, postpartum mental illness, postpartum blues, postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, auditory hallucinations, delusions, depression, mens rea,
In chapter eight the issue of competency to stand trail is being discussed. Competency to stand trial brings into question whether or not the defendant can mentally handle the trail and/or if they understand what is going on. There is estimation that roughly 60,000 criminal defendants are evaluated for competency to stand trial every year. Individuals who are deemed incompetent tend to have a history of mental illness, show symptoms currently of a mental illness, have mental retardation, and have a history of drug abuse. Individuals can have a restoration of competency, which means that they can be limited to the period of confinement if they could return to competency in the foreseeable future. Individuals who have a restoration in competency are usually treated with antipsychotic medications. These medications can reduce the frequency of hallucinations and delusions that the individual experiences. These individuals do have the right to refuse treatment and do not have to take the medications that can better their situation. In Riggins v. Nevada the case dealt with a defendant who was medicated against his will. Riggins had taken these antipsychotics in the past and they bettered his condition, but he was relying of the insanity defense. After taking the medication it made him competent to stand trail and therefor ruining his case. There are many different tests and techniques that can be used when evaluating CST, which I found interesting. You would think that there would be a universal test over the United States so that each individual gets a fair defense. There is also the issue of malingering, which is when an individual intentionally fakes a mental illness or disability in order to get a lesser charge.
In chapter nine the issue at hand is the insanity defense. When talking about insanity we are referring to the individual’s state of mind when they committed said crime. With the insanity defense individuals involved also need to be cautious of malingering, the person in question may be more likely to want a lesser charge because of insanity. In the beginning of this chapter that trial of Andrea Yates was being discussed. She ended up being diagnosed with postpartum mental illness. Basically this means she was depressed and with each child Andrea had she fell into a deeper stage of depression. I found this interesting because I had never heard of this before. I had known that some women become depressed for a few weeks after childbirth but I did not know that there were cases of that severity.
Term: competency to stand trial, defendant, mental illness, restoration of competency, foreseeable future, antipsychotic medication, hallucinations, delusions, Riggins v. Nevada, insanity, malingering, Andrea Yates, postpartum mental illness, depression,
In chapter eight the issue of competency to stand trail is being discussed. Competency to stand trial brings into question whether or not the defendant can mentally handle the trail and/or if they understand what is going on. There is estimation that roughly 60,000 criminal defendants are evaluated for competency to stand trial every year. Individuals who are deemed incompetent tend to have a history of mental illness, show symptoms currently of a mental illness, have mental retardation, and have a history of drug abuse. Individuals can have a restoration of competency, which means that they can be limited to the period of confinement if they could return to competency in the foreseeable future. Individuals who have a restoration in competency are usually treated with antipsychotic medications. These medications can reduce the frequency of hallucinations and delusions that the individual experiences. These individuals do have the right to refuse treatment and do not have to take the medications that can better their situation. In Riggins v. Nevada the case dealt with a defendant who was medicated against his will. Riggins had taken these antipsychotics in the past and they bettered his condition, but he was relying of the insanity defense. After taking the medication it made him competent to stand trail and therefor ruining his case. There are many different tests and techniques that can be used when evaluating CST, which I found interesting. You would think that there would be a universal test over the United States so that each individual gets a fair defense. There is also the issue of malingering, which is when an individual intentionally fakes a mental illness or disability in order to get a lesser charge.
In chapter nine the issue at hand is the insanity defense. When talking about insanity we are referring to the individual’s state of mind when they committed said crime. With the insanity defense individuals involved also need to be cautious of malingering, the person in question may be more likely to want a lesser charge because of insanity. In the beginning of this chapter that trial of Andrea Yates was being discussed. She ended up being diagnosed with postpartum mental illness. Basically this means she was depressed and with each child Andrea had she fell into a deeper stage of depression. I found this interesting because I had never heard of this before. I had known that some women become depressed for a few weeks after childbirth but I did not know that there were cases of that severity.
Term: competency to stand trial, defendant, mental illness, restoration of competency, foreseeable future, antipsychotic medication, hallucinations, delusions, Riggins v. Nevada, insanity, malingering, Andrea Yates, postpartum mental illness, depression,
Chapter eight is about suspects who have mental illnesses and whether or not they are able to stand trial. It starts off giving a story about a man who shot officers inside the Capitol building. After being captured they found that he had a history of mental illness like paranoid schizophrenia, which is a mental illness that makes a person lose touch with reality. Those with paranoid schizophrenia tend to hear voices, which are also called auditory hallucinations, they also have difficulty thinking and speaking in a coherent manner, and this is called thought disorder. They may also have false beliefs, which are more commonly called delusions. All of these symptoms affect their regular behavior and may make them act in an irrational matter. Competence refers to whether an individual has enough ability to perform personal or legal functions. Criminal defendants must be able to pass a form called the CST (competency to stand trial) in order to take part in a court proceeding. The CST originated from the case Dusky v. United States in which a psychologist evaluated Dusky and found that he was unable to help in his own defense because of his mental illness. The CST refers to the psychological state of the defendant at the time of the trial, and the psychological state of the defendant at the time of the crime isn’t relevant when using the CST. When using this concept a defendant must have the ability to 1. Understand their current legal situation 2. Understand the charges again them 3. Understand the pleas available 4. Understand the possible penalties of conviction 5. Understand the roles of the judge, and so on. The Supreme Court then held that a guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Ethical guidelines require lawyers to tell the judge if they think the defendant may be incompetent. Incompetent defendants tend to have a history of treatment for mental illness, a history of drug abuse, and usually don’t commit serious crimes. The most common metal illnesses in incompetent defendants are psychotic illnesses; severe affective disorders, and mental retardation. All of these disorders directly relate to the abnormal psychology branch of psychology. Clinical psychologists and health professionals have been known to be used to evaluate the competence of defendants. CST tests were some of the first forensic assessment instruments to be used. FAIs were created to differ from traditional psychological tests. They aren’t designed to answer legal questions. Sometimes a defendant fakes incompetence to avoid going to trial. The faking of a mental illness is known as malingering. There are psychological tests with certain questions aimed towards detecting whether someone is trying to fake a mental illness.
Chapter 9 is about the insanity defense, and the book gives a highly controversial example of Andrea Yates and her five children. Since the evidence against her was strong, the court focused on whether or not she was legally insane and knew right from wrong. The concept of insanity refers to the criminal’s state of mind at the time of the crime. To plea insanity it requires that the defendant lack moral responsibility and culpability for their crime due to a mental illness. Those who plea insanity are studied by a clinical psychologist, and hopefully they can help in the determination of insanity for legal purposes. Yates was diagnosed with postpartum mental illness, which is an illness that makes someone feel depressed. There are different suggestions on how punishment should be administered. One perspective is the retribution perspective where the punishment for a crime should be equal to the harm committed. The deterrence perspective says that an offender should be punished so he/she learns that committing a crime leads to punishment. There are also mens rea, which means “guilty mind” and actus reus which means committing a criminal act. Both must be present to be found guilty. There are three important cases that started reforms in insanity law. The first is the M’Naghten case in which a Daniel M’Naghten believed that people in the government were plotting to kill him. His plan was to kill the prime minister of England because he believed he was part of the plot. They found him not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). From this case came the M’Naghten rule, which stated basically that the defendant was mentally ill at the time of the crime, and that he/she didn’t know the nature of the act committed. The M’Naghten rule eventually moved from English law into American law and is sometimes referred to as a cognitive test of insanity. The second case is the Durham case. From this case came the Durham standard, which states that an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease. The third case is the Hinckley case in which John Hinckley set out to assassinate President Reagan in an attempt to win the love of Jodie Foster. From this case came the burden of proof, which was placed on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was sane instead of requiring the defense to prove that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime. There are tests and techniques for determining insanity. The two mostly used are the Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation (MSE), and the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS).
One thing I didn’t know before reading these chapters is John Hinckley case. I have seen the video of President Reagan getting shot, but I never knew it was an insanity case. After reading the facts of the case, like how he was obsessed with the film Taxi Driver and was obsessed with Jodie Foster. I also never knew that a defendant who pleas insane can refuse treatment and antipsychotic medication. I had always thought that the government had the power to automatically distribute drugs that would help the patient. The most surprising information I learned was the trial of Andrea Yates. The fact that her husband wasn’t even against what she did. He thought that if she could have gotten the treatment she needed, she wouldn’t have done what she did and the kids would still be living. It’s scary to think that a woman would kill her kids because she thought she wasn’t being a good mother, and as a result of her bad mothering skills her kids weren’t developing correctly. I think these individual criminals are far worse than criminals who commit murders with a sane mind. I’m not sure If my views of insanity have changed or not because before reading these chapters my knowledge on the topic was limited. I always thought that most defendants pleading insanity were probably just doing it to get a lesser sentence, to not go to prison and instead go to a psychiatric ward where they would have more freedoms.
Terms: paranoid schizophrenia, auditory hallucinations, thought disorder, delusions, competence, CST, knowing, voluntary, intelligent, FAIs, malingering, insanity, retribution perspective, mens rea, actus reus, cognitive test, burden of proof,
So we went over Competency to Stand Trial(CST) and Insanity Plea. There is a lot of information about these two topics ill try to keep it around 1,000 words.
So the definition of CST is basically if someone is able to stand trial. What that entails though is a multitude of things. You need an understanding of most basic law proceedings including the understanding of your crime, understanding your rights(many of them), being able to discuss things with the lawyer etc. Now all of this is important because it involves the fairness to the person standing trial. It would be unethical and unfair to have someone in court who wasn’t able to even understand why or what they were doing in court. The definition of CST came about because of the Dusky v. United States trial.
Now the book states that it is important to remember that CST and the insanity pleas are both Legal terms, not psychological ones. However, Psychology still plays a huge part in it because it is defining if they are psychologically able to either stand trial or if they committed the crime in the appropriate psychological mind set. So both of these subjects are usually evaluated by clinical psychologists or psychiatrists in an attempt to see if the person is competent or insane at the time of the crime. There are many things to look at to decide if they are either of those though.
Some things one must look at with competence are, Understand their current legal situation, understand the charges against them, undersand the pleas available, among others. Now being found CST doesn’t mean that the person is in good mental health it just means the person is coherent and understanding enough at the time to be considered CST.
Another issue when looking at CST is Adolescents. It is shown that the ages of adolescents has a major impact on either they have CST. Considering that a 12 year old probably doesn’t understand his or her rights in a legal situation nor the workings of the legal situation they probably shouldn’t be considered CST. However the older the person gets the more likely it is that they will be considered CST. There are lots of other things that relate to age in a similar manner, such as admitting to a crime.
When someone is considered incompetent the trial will be put on hold and the person will be sent to restore their competency. Depending on if they can restore the competency will decide if the case will be dropped. If they don’t ever restore the competency they usually end up in a psychiatric hospital because they wont be able to take care of themselves.
A big issue with competency is medication. Because medication can help restore the competence of an individual should they be forced to take the medication. Some of the issues revolves around if the person thinks that the medication is needed. If the person is disillusioned about why they would be taking the medication such as if they thought their was a plot from the gvt then they wouldn’t be able to be forced to have medication. All of this would be decided upon by a judge and an expert(psychiatrist)
Their have been many tests for competence over the years and it has slowly evolved as most psychological tests do over time. Some of them being MMPI-2, ECST-R, CAD-COMP. They all involve different methods and questioning to decide if someone can stand trial. It comes down to the experts judgement however if someone can stand trial. However the experts is just an evaluation handed the judge so he can decide if the person can stand trial. 80% of judges use the evaluation of the expert however.
Malingering in both CST and Insanity is when someone lies about their competence or if they were insane to try to decide the outcome of the trial. In the case of Competence the outcome is usually the same as the trial is only postponed until the person can stand trial so they cant really get out of the trial itself.
Now the insanity defense is about wether someone was considered insane at the time of the crime itself. In the case of Andrea Yates she drowned her 5 children called 911 and sat there and waited for the police to come. This would allude the fact that she didn’t know right from wrong as she wasn’t disturbed about the whole thing. This became a legal term because it would be considered unfair to the person if they were being held accountable for something they didn’t know was wrong due to an illness. Deterrence however deals with punishing someone so they later know that what they did was wrong. Most people would argue though that if they are insane or mentally retarded the punishing them is not really going to do anything as they will not understand the reasoning behind it. This has to largely do with psychology because again a psychologist or psychiatrist will decide if the person could ultimately know right from wrong at the time of the crime.
The chapter talked about 3 importand cases: The M’Naghten case, The Durham case, The hinkley case. These were important because the outcomes changed different laws involving the insanity plea. These different rules have changed over the years, and while some are still in effect I believe the book said the M’N rule has been pretty much abolished. I did think the Hinckley case was very interesting however.
The IDRA of 1984 was installed because of the outrage following the Hinkley verdict. The reform act required that there be a presumption of sanity and that the defendants prove by clear and convincing evidence that they were insane at the time of the crime. Also due to this Psychologists weren’t allowed to give their expert opinions involving if the person was insane at the time of the crime, that was left up to jurors. Its funny because this was really just a updated version of the M’N rule.
A mens Rea Defense allows a defendant to plead diminished capacity. This is only available for certain crimes such as First- Degree murder. In regards to first degree murder an example would be if someone because of their insanity wouldn’t meet certain critieria for the crime, such as pre-meditation. This doesn’t get them innocent just makes it so they get a lesser charge.
As with CST there are many tests for assessing insanity. Some of them are MSE, R-CRAS, etc. These again have all been updated at the years have gone on and beome a lot more clear and concise.
Malingering again comes up in insanity, and a lot of people who do have mental disorders will attempt to say they were insane at the time of the crime. Because they have proof they have mental disorders one would think they would be able to do this pretty effectively However I recall reading somewhere that only about 5% of insanity pleas are actually considered insane so its not the most effective way to get out of the punishment.
I have actually been looking forward to these chapters as they are very well known in society and media. I recall the Mark Becker case a few years back that we studied in my Mock Trial class that dealt with both these issues and I find the detail they go into to try to prove on way or another is very interesting. This was one of the main reasons I got into psych and more than likely this will be the route that I go about as a I pursue my Ph.D. in psychology.
Psychology, Malingering, medication, Competence, Insanity, Clinical, Forensic, multiple tests, restoration of CST, psychiatry, deterrence, multiple rules, IDRA, defendant, prosecutor, first degree murder.
Chapter 8 involved the competency to stand trial. The book says that CST includes the ability to interact rationally with an attorney and the ability to understand how court proceedings go. One thing to remember about CST is that is it focused on the defendant’s ability to function in a court system, not his/her willingness. When the court’s decide if someone is CST, there must be the presumption of CST; the defendant is presumed to be competent unless proved otherwise, and the preponderance of evidence; the defense but prove that the defendant is more than likely incompetent. One thing that remains an issue is whether or not CST should be a flexible standard, which means that in some cases a defendant may need to be more competent than in other cases (a more serious crime versus a lesser crime). The main characteristics of someone who may be incompetent are psychotic illnesses, severe affective disorders, and mental retardation. Some things that surprised me in chapter 8 was that there tend to be no argument when it comes to providing a competency evaluation when requested. This was interesting to me because I figured the prosecution might try to fight this request, but then I ready that either side may ask for a competency evaluation to try and delay the trial and get more information. Another thing I found interesting was the fact that between 60%-90% incompetent defendants are successfully restored and eventually stand trial. The restoration of CST mainly involves treatments with antipsychotic medication. Finally it has been shown that sometimes defendants try and fake being incompetent to get a lesser sentence or get something else out of being incompetent. This is known as malingering. It is in fact not always beneficial to be incompetent because although a trial may be postponed, the defendant will still spend this time under close watch by the legal system.
Chapter 9 surrounded the legal term insanity. Insanity refers to the criminals state of mind at the time the crime was committed. This is different from CST because CST refers to the defendant’s state of mind during the time of the trial. Insanity came about in part by two main terms. The retribution perspective states that the punishment of a crime should be proportionate to the harm inflicted. If a person were legally known as insane, the retribution effect would not work on them because they would have no understanding of their punishment. The deterrence perspective state that punishing someone for a crime may lead other possible criminals to deter from committing the crime. This idea would not work for someone is legally insane because they would not have the capacity to understand deterrence. There have been some big cases throughout the legal system involving insanity. The M’Naughten Rule stated that it must be clearly proved, at the time of the crime, the criminal was suffering from a disease of the mind that inhibited him/her of knowing the nature and quality of the act he/she was committing. The Durham Rule stated that the accused person is not criminally responsible if the crime was a product of a mental disease or defect. One widely used verdict is the Guilty but mentally ill (GBMI). This states that the person is guilty of the crime but he/she suffers from a mental illness and cannot be held fully responsible for his/her actions. In this case the defendant would serve a period of time in prison, and also serve a period of time getting psychiatric treatment. Something I found interesting in Chapter 9 was the policeman at the elbow test. This idea was used to decide if the defendant’s impulse to commit the crime was so strong that he/she would still do the crime even if a policeman stood beside him/her at the time of the crime.
I found these chapters very interesting to read and I realized that psychology could be tied in so many ways specifically to these two chapters.
Key Terms: insanity, guilty but mentally ill, deterrence, competency to stand trial, antipsychotic, incompetent, retribution, M’Naughten rule, Durham rule
Chapters 8 & 9 discussed several important and interesting aspects related to criminal activity and the mental state of an individual. The first topic is competency to stand trial (cst) which is the ability to participate adequately in criminal proceedings and to aid in one’s own defense. This concept is important because if a person is not able to help themselves due to a mental illness, then they probably shouldn’t be treated by the court system the same as people who do not have mental issues. CST refers to the psychological state of the defendant at the time of trial, not at the time of the crime. Thus if a person is not able to handle their case due to any mental issues gives reason to examine what state they were in during the crime. For an individual to be able to be competent to stand trial they have to express two aspects; the ability to interact rationally with an attorney, and the ability to understand how court processes work. The first aspect makes complete sense to me however the second aspect seems odd, as many individuals do not know or understand how the court system works.
It was really interesting to see that people found to suffer from severe mental disorders, psychosis, or mental retardation are often judged CST. It appears that there is a gray area in the relationship between mental illness and competency. According to the text competence means that a defendant meets the minimal standard of being able to cooperate with an attorney, and that he or she is aware of the nature and possible consequences of the proceedings against him or her. What I immediately think about is when this person in screened or decided whether or not to be judged CST, what their mental state is at the time of being screened. As many individuals who suffer from mental disorders have good & bad days. The text discusses the idea of CST being a flexible standard; if a defendant is facing very serious charges in a case with complex facts they may need to be more competent than someone facing less serious charges. I think this is very important for the criminal justice system to look at because if an individual with very serious charges does not understand everything that is going on they are likely to have more difficulty through a trial.
Defendants who are found to be incompetent have similar characteristics. They tend to have a history of treatment for mental illness, show obvious symptoms of current mental illness, have a history of drug abuse, socially isolated, unmarried, unemployed, poorly educated, and below average intelligence. Thus these individuals are not able to stand trial and work with an attorney because they are found incompetent. If these individuals were found competent it is likely that they would have had several issues going through the process of trial.
The most interesting aspect of this chapter was the idea of malingering, we see this all the time in TV shows and movies. Malingering is the deliberate feigning or gross exaggeration of physical or psychological symptoms in order to gain a positive or avoid a negative one. In these cases individuals are attempting to make themselves look like they have a mental disorder so they are found incompetent which influences their final verdict. Or and individual may be attempting to change their prison sentence to not be as long if they go back to court. I would think it would be challenging for an individual to act like this and to get away with a fake mental disorder.
Chapter 9 discussed several influential cases that have brought about new policies as well as getting rid of incorrect ones. In cases where they are trying to decide if an individual has a mental disorder a clinical psychologist is often called. These individuals study and treat various forms of psychological dysfunction and mental illness and they help in criminal cases. The other part in relation to competence is insanity. Insanity refers to the criminal’s state of mind at the time of the crime, this is not like competency. Thus due to a mental illness, a defendant lacks moral responsibility for their crime and should not be punished.
I learned a lot of new information regarding how an individual is viewed in the court system, whether they are competent or insane. I view insanity in a whole new light because in the media it is typically portrayed that the individual who committed the crime is so called “getting away with it” in reality they were really sick when it occurred and they still are. Thus I think it is important to examine the mental state of a perpetrator before the case moves forward.
Terms: Competency to stand trial, flexible standard, malingering, clinical psychologists, insanity, Competence, mental illnesses,
Chapters eight and nine explain competency and Insanity. I found these chapters very interesting due to how hard it is to determine if a defendant is insane or not. Lets start off with a defendant's ability to stand competent in a trial. Competence is defined as a legal, not psychological and refers to whether an individual as sufficient present ability to perform necessary personal or legal functions. The competency to stand trial (CST) was evident in the case of the "Capitol Shooter", Russell Weston was arrested for the shootings and deemed incompetent by a clinical psychologist in his trial. Weston was diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia, a very severe mental illness that caused him to lose touch with reality. So of course he wouldn't be able to adequately defend himself in his trial.
It is very important that a defendant understands what is going on from their arrest to their sentencing due to the fact their liberty is at stake. In the Dusky v. United States trial, Dusky was a mentally ill man who was deemed too unfit to stand competent in trial. The Supreme Court developed a new standard after this trial going by Presumption of CST which states that the defendant is competent unless proven incompetent and the defense bears the burden of proving that the defendant is incompetent.
CST refers to the defendant's ability to understand their current legal situation, understand the charges they may face, and other penalties they may face if convicted, and the overall behavior that should be portrayed during their trial. I found it interesting how a criminal's state of mind takes on changes from arrest to conviction. I was always under the impression that a criminal maintained the same state of mind. You never know what the defendant's influence was until it is analyzed by a psychologist or a judge. Like how the influence could be a severe mental illness or some type of drug the defendant could have been taking. What I feel is unfair is whether adolescents should be determined CST or not if ever standing trial. I feel adolescents should be given some lee way due to the idea that not all adolescents understand the terms of the criminal justice system, heck, I'm still confused as to the terms of the system... and think of how nerve racking it would be for an adolescent to stand trial. Plus the fact that the judge has the power to determine if the defendant is competent or not, even then they only have a 50/50 chance.
Chapter nine explains the insanity defense. This a load of bull because how can someone prove that they were insane at the time of committing the crime? This defense is a rarity in trials. The case of Andrea Yates is the most controversial insanity case in the United States. Almost all people considered insane have a mental illness of some kind. They undergo evaluation by a clinical psychologist. I learned of the difference between insanity and incompetency. Incompetency is the defendant's state of mind during the trial and insanity is the defendant's state of mind during the crime, so a look a past and present if you will. People found not guilty by reason of insanity are placed under psychiatric treatment and locked up in a psychiatric facility for the rest of their life. Malingering is the reason why people try to declare insanity. I was surprised at how hard it is to be declared insane, you must really have to be a full blown nutcase in order to be insane. Declaring you are insane even if you really are not is a way defendants try to get away with a big crime.
Chapters eight and nine gave me a lot of insight on what is determined for a defendant and that some people out in the world are truly insane and some have to be stamped with the label of insanity to actually be insane. Its never really clear to judges the insanity of a defendant until their true colors are dug up during a trial. There should be no changes made involving the insanity defense, if the defendant is indeed insane, lock 'em up!
Key terms: Paranoid Schizophrenia, competency, competency to stand trial (CST), the Capitol Shooter, Dusky v. United States, insanity defense, malingering
The chapter opened up with a senerio of a man who went into the capital building and shot multiple people. He stated that he did it because it thought he could save the country from cannibals, communism, and disease. It turned out that Russell Weston Jr. (“the capital killer”) was diagnoses with paranoid schizophrenia which is a serious mental illness whose sufferers lose touch with reality. They have a wide variety of symptoms such as hearing voices (auditory hallucinations), and disorganized thinking, etc. We would assume that if someone heard voices it would be linked with sensory psychology, but actually the voices are all in their heads. This man has been on trial for over ten years because he has not yet met the legal terms necessary for legal functions. Therefore this case has demonstrated competency to stand trial, which is the ability to participate adequately in criminal proceedings and to aid in ones own defense.
Competency to stand trial is a legal and not a psychology concept. It referrers to the persons ability to understand court related functions and to know what is going on during the trial. Also, not even knowing what charges are being filed against them. Competecy to stand trial is normally an issue brought up at a retrial hearing, but it can be ordered by a judge or attorneys at any time during the trial as long as there is a bonda fide doubt, or a reasonable doubt about the defendants competency. Usually a psychiratrist, clinical psychologist, or social worker is asked to serve as an evaluator. In class I had remembered Dr. Maclin talk about this, and how she has done this a few times. She is there to give advice and review the defendants history and write a report.
Something that I found interesting in this chapter was about the adolescent incompetence to stand trial. In the 1990’s all 50 states began to allow juveniles of a certain age to be tried in adult court when charged with a serious crime. (which I fully support) They can file a CST due to their intellectual immaturity, they may not be able to fully understand the charges they are being tried for and may lack the ablilty to interact with their attorneys.
In my criminology class and also crime in community we learned about deterrence. Deterrence is a perspective on punishment that suggests an individual offender should be punished so that he or she learns that committing a crime leads to punishment. There are a few types of deterrence such as general deterrence which refers to the whole public and letting people know that if they commit a crime they will get caught. There is also specific deterrence that is directed as a specific person. I also learned about mens rea which are crimes such as murder. And Actus rea which are crimes such as gambling, prostitution, drinking, etc. The insanity defense is built on the principle that people who commit crimes without fill awareness should not be held fully responsible for their actions.
I do not think that my views of insanity have changed since reading this chapter. I think that if they are unable to stand trial then that should not let them off the hook and they still need to have punishment. Whether that is at a mental intuition, taking antipsychotic medications… or in a juveniles case a boot camp, etc.
Paranoid schizophrenia, auditory hallucinations, thought disorder, competency to stand trial, antipsychotic medications, bonda fide doubt, deterrence, specific deterrence, general deterrence, mens rea, actus reus, insanity, sensory psychology
Chapter 8 focuses on a defendant's competency to stand trial (CST). We are first given an example of a paranoid schizophrenic who opened fire in the United States Capital Building and it was questioned as to whether or not he was CST. It says in the Constitution that everyone has the right to a fair trial in our country, and we must make sure that we are being fair in every sense, including the state of one's mind. I learned that during the Dusky trial, it was made apparent that the court was looking at the defendant's PRESENT state of mind when determining competency, not their state of mind so much when the crime was committed, as that is involved in insanity. This is known as "the Dusky standard". There are certain functions and flexible standards that are looked at when determining CST, such as the defendant understanding their Miranda Rights and the severity of the crime committed. Some suspects waive their right to an attorney and want to represent themselves and it is up to the judge, along with psychological experts, to determine whether they are even competent enough to make this decision. Bona fide doubt is doubt enough about CST that the experts are used. Some interview the suspects one time at the precinct or prison and other times an interview is done in the clinical setting. It gets even trickier when dealing with adolescents and competency issues. At a younger age, juveniles are more likely to confess to a crime in order to get out of being questioned by the police. If a suspect receives treatment for a mental illness and their competency improves as examined by a psychologist, then they are able to once again stand trial and be held accountable for their actions. The chapter also discusses antipsychotic medication that is given during treatment to help with CST. Often times these medications have serious side effects, and the person decides they do not want to take it. However, they are not always equipped to make this decision, and whether or not they continue on the meds is determined by a professional and whether or not the meds are necessary to the safety of the person and others. Lastly, the chapter gives a lengthy list of exams used to test competency, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory second edition and the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial Instrument Revised. I learned the term "malingering" which is in regards to those who fake being incompetent in order to try and avoid a guilty sentence. Now on to chapter 9. The introduction made me absolutely sick, as I had never studied the Andrea Yates trial. This will be an interesting MOT chapter as well. This chapter deals with the defendant's state of mind DURING the crime, which is often referred to as the "insanity defense". In the case of Andrea Yates, it was suspected that she had postpartum depression that got worse after each child. The debate is if she would have received the help she needed, would this horrible crime have been committed? One of the paragraphs compared prosecuting an insane person to prosecuting a child who accidentally shot their friend with their parent's gun. It is hard to believe that someone is actually insane enough to commit horrible crimes like Andrea Yates because it seems like a lot of lawyers try to use that debate in order to get an easier punishment, if not one at all. There are 3 cases mentioned in the book that shaped insanity laws: M'Naghten Case, Durham Case, and Hinckley Case. The M'Nathen Case dealt with whether or not the defendant understood that what he or she did was wrong. The Durham case asked if a mental illness was involved, and the Hinckley Case also deals with understanding that what they did was wrong. I learned the term "mens rea defense" which means that the attorney would say that the defendant committed the crime, but their mental illness made it so they didn't know what they were doing. In comparison to CST, the insanity defense includes expert opinion and testing/interviewing the individual. Just like CST, there are those who will lie about being insane in order to try and get out of the trial. This is once again known as malingering. Over all, I found this chapter very interesting. I actually watched a court case in the last six months involving the insanity debate (the Hemy Neuman trial) and it is very interesting. Many psychologists are called on to interview and testify. They do hours and hours of research just before interviewing and testing the defendant, and then give their diagnosis.
Terms: paranoid schizophrenic,defendant, competency to stand trial (CST), Constitution, insanity, Dusky standard, flexible standards, Miranda Rights, bona fide doubt, antipsychotic medication, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory second edition, Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial Instrument Revised, malingering, Andrea Yates trial, insanity defense, postpartum depression, M'Naghten Case, Durham Case, Hinckley Case, mens rea defense, Hemy Neuman trial
Chapter 8 on competency to stand trial began by giving us a mean of what “competency to stand trial” really means. It is really important the a defendant understands what is going on throughout the entire criminal justice process, and if they don’t then it can be deemed unfair simply because they have no understanding of what is being brought against them. One concern for CST is the fairness to the defendant. If the defendant is unable to fully work as a part of their defense team, then they are more unlikely to receive a just verdict. Another concern has to do with the public respect for the criminal justice system. If the legal system were to try, convict and punish someone who does not understand the nature of the legal proceedings, then it is going against everything that the legal system supposedly stands for.
What people think of today for CST is derived from the 1960 case of Dusky v. United States. Dusky was a man who committed a serious crime and was arrested. He was then sent for a CST evaluation where he was determined to be suffering from schizophrenia. Although he was found to be mentally ill, Dusky was still found to be competent to stand trial and was eventually found guilty of the crime (45 years in prison). Dusky appealed the case and the Supreme Court backed him and his attorneys saying that his trial did not support his actual competence to stand trial. CST refers to the psychological state of the defendant at the time of the trial. How the defendant was mentally at the time the crime was committed has nothing to do with competency. CST includes two components: the ability to interact rationally with an attorney and the ability to understand how court processes work. It is also important to note that CST is focusing on the defendants ability to understand, no their willingness to cooperate and perform certain duties for the defense. CST is a legal term, not a psychological term (which may confuse some people). This is because it is referring to the defendant’s ability to understand things such as their current legal situation, the charges against them, the pleas available, the possible penalties if they are convicted and many more. Whether or not CST should be a flexible standard is still controversial. This refers to whether a defendant facing very serious charges in a case with complex facts may need to be more competent than someone facing less serious charges and a simpler legal proceeding. Some people believe the seriousness of the charges and the complexity of the case should play a role in how competent a defendant should be and some do not believe it should play a role. In terms of the defendant pleading guilty to their charges, the plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. It has to be clear that they were not talked into it by someone and that they fully understand what is at stake with a guilty plea.
Incompetent defendants have certain characteristics. First, they tend to have a history of mental illness along with a history drug abuse. They also tend to be socially isolated, unmarried, unemployed, poorly educated and of below average intelligence. When looking at adolescent incompetence, adolescent defendants may lack sufficient understanding of the criminal justice system and/or lack the ability to interact effectively with their attorneys due to their intellectual immaturity. A final term to discuss from chapter 8 is malingering. This can be defined as the problem of intentionally faking mental illness or disability motivated by an external incentive. This does not usually work in a defendant’s favor simply because being found incompetent to stand trial does not mean the charges are being dropped or that they are being found not guilty. It only means the trial will be suspended until they are ready to stand trial. Chapter 9 discusses the insanity defense. The large case that the book gives for this is the case of Andrea Yates. She was found to be mentally ill by more than one clinical psychologist and psychiatrists and she was eventually sentenced to life is prison over the death penalty. Insanity differs from competency in that it refers to the criminal’s state of mind at the time the crime was committed (competency is their state of mind during the trial). This infers that the defendant lacks moral responsibility and culpability for their crime and therefore should not be punished. The defense of insanity is built on the principle that people who commit crimes without full awareness should not be held fully responsible for their actions. Punishing people who have no awareness that their action was wrong serves no useful purpose and it does not meet the retributive or deterrence goals of punishment. There are three important cases when looking at the insanity defense. First is the M’Naghten case. This case resulted in the not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) direction. M’Naghten spent the rest of his life in an insane asylum. This case resulted in the implementation of the M’Naghten rule. The Durham case is about a man who was convicted of a crime when he was found to be mentally ill numerous times before hand. However, the U.S. Courts of Appeals eventually overturned this decision. The Hinckley case is another that ended with in NGRI, except this time many people believed that Hinckley was deserving of prison even though he may have been mentally ill. After the Hinckley case, the guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict was implemented. This allows for some mentally ill people to be convicted even though they may be mentally ill. This is the verdict that many people feel may have been well-suited for Hinckley. The mens rea defense is also used. However, in order for this defense to be used, a specific mental state on the part of the defendant must be present. Malingering also plays a large part in the insanity defense. Defendants may be tempted to act as if they are mentally ill for a lesser sentence.
What was most interesting to me about these chapters would have to be getting to read in depth about the differences between competency and insanity. I think a lot of people, myself included before reading this chapter, get these two concepts confused. It’s interesting to learn that competency is the state of mind during the trial while insanity is the state of mind at the time the crime was committed. There is a clear difference and it’s important to know this difference. I also that it was interesting to read about the threes specific cases that defined the use of the insanity defense. It’s always interesting to me to read about how things like this developed to where they are now. Many changes clearly were needed to be made over the years and the accommodations that have been made seem to be well put together. Just as mentioned above, I did not fully understand the difference between competency and insanity before reading these chapters. If you are looking to have a solid understanding of these legal terms and how the legal process works, then it is vital that these terms are kept separate considering they do mean two very different things. I also was fairly unaware of what brought about the current definition of CST. Just like insanity, it has taken many years to get competency to stand trial to where it is today and I think that it will continue to change as the years go on, otherwise it will no longer be effective (the same goes for insanity). Lastly, I think it’s safe to say that my views on insanity have changed after reading simply because I have a better understanding of what it really is and how it is applied to the criminal justice process. Expanding my knowledge on the topic has really allowed me to look further into the use of the insanity defense and to be educated on when a defendant is in need of this defense or not.
Terms: mens rea defense, guilty but mentally ill (GBMI), M’Naghten rule, not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), retribution, deterrence, insanity, clinical psychologist, malingering, knowing voluntary & intelligent, flexible standard, Dusky v. United States, CST
Chapter 8 discusses the topic of competency to stand trial. It begins by defining competency as a general term, referring to whether and individual has sufficient present ability to perform necessary personal or legal functions. Competency can be applied to many topics in the legal system, including competency to waive Miranda rights and competency to confess. The chapter focuses on only one of the topics for competency though – competency to stand trial (CST). The chapter defines competency to stand trial as the ability to participate adequately in criminal proceedings and to aid in one’s own defense. One of the topics brought up in the chapter was the subject of presumption of CST. Presumption of CST means that defendants in a trial are presumed to be competent unless proven incompetent, and that the defense bears the burden of proving that the defendant is incompetent. The chapter goes on to explain that presumption of CST uses the preponderance of the evidence standard when determining CST. In this standard, the defense must prove that it is more likely than not that the defendant is incompetent. This means that the judge needs to be more than 50% certain that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial and that 100% certainty isn’t necessary. I was not aware of this fact and it seems that it is a worthwhile concession to the defense, as proving incompetency to stand trial can be a very difficult process already. The chapter spends the rest of its time discussing various ways to measure competency to stand trial, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory second edition, and forensic assessment instruments, among many others. Chapter 8 also spends time discussing the topic of malingering, which it defines as deliberately feigning or gross exaggeration of physical or psychological symptoms in order to gain a positive outcome. Malingering can be difficult to detect and pose a problem for determining competency to stand trial. There are tests to determine if malingering is occurring, such as the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms.
Chapter 9 discusses the topic of the insanity defense, which relates well to Chapter 8 and the topic of CST. Unlike competency to stand trial, which involves the state of the defendant during the time of the trial, the insanity plea refers to the criminal’s mental state at the time the crime was committed. This is most often determined by a clinical psychologist. The chapter then discusses the evolution of insanity law, describing how it changed along with changing perspectives of punishment throughout history, such as the retribution era and the deterrence era. The book also outlines three important cases involving the insanity defense and how the influence the evolution of insanity law. The M’Naughten Case involved Daniel M’Naughten, who was declared not guilty by reason of insanity and sent to an insane asylum, where he spent the rest of his life. This case led to the M’Naughten Rule, which set a new standard for determining legal insanity. The Durham Case established the Durham standard, which stated that an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect. The Hinckley Case led to the burden of proof to determine the sanity of the defendant being shifted to the prosecution instead of the defense. All of these cases eventually led to the Insanity Defense Reform Act, which fixed many of the issues with the insanity defense. Lastly, the chapter describes some techniques and tests for determining insanity. These tests include the Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation (MSE), which attempts to screen out defendants whose crimes were not influenced by a significant mental disorder, and the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS), which attempts to translate the legal standards of insanity into components like the ability to control one’s own behavior or thoughts.
Both chapter 8 and 9 are very interesting and address similar topics, both of which I feel best relate to clinical psychology. Clinical Psychologists are relied on to determine things such as competency to stand trial and whether a defendant can be deemed insane at the time of a crime. The chapters didn’t really change my perspective of either of their topics, mainly due to the fact that I have already learned about and discussed both of them in previous classes. It was still nice to read about CST and the insanity defense again to see how much I could recall from previous lessons on the subjects.
Terms: competency to stand trial, insanity defense, competency, Miranda rights, presumption of CST, preponderance of the evidence, MMPI-2, FAI, malingering, clinical psychology, M’Naughten Case, Durham Case, Hinckley Case, Insanity Defense Reform Act, MSE, R-CRAS
The story from chapter is a great example of a high profile killing, which in recent years we’ve seen a lot of them. Russell Weston suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and had lost touch with reality and many mass killers have suffered from the same thing. James Holmes is standing trail and using the insanity plea to get out of a 166 counts of murder. Selling guns to mentally ill person is illegal, but a major issue today is that back ground checks are doing enough, mass shootings could be prevented if we had good back ground checks. The competency to stand trial is major issues when it comes to capital crimes. There are two components to CST, one being the ability to understand the court process, and second the ability to interact with their attorney. Today the defendant must prove that he/she is incompetent to stand trial and judge must make a ruling on it. It all revolves around the defendant’s ability to understand what is happen in the court and possible punishments that could happen if found guilty. if found guilty of murder mentally ill can be put to death, because the same rule apply to death penalty, that you cannot kill somebody that doesn’t know what’s happening. Any defendant suffering from a mental illness should undergo psychological testing to see if they know what going on. If they defendant is found incompetent, they could be sent to a hospital for mental health care. When it comes to mental health care many doctors don’t know have a good treatment and antipsychotic medication is the best they can do. In America today, we don’t have the greatest mental health care and often can be released still suffering from mental illness. Because the antipsychotic medication has physical side effects, mentally ill patients won’t take their meds and their conditions get worse.
Chapter eight is great introduction into chapter nine which focuses on whether a defendant is legally insane. Insanity refers to the state of mind at the time of the crime and they can’t tell the difference between right and wrong. Andrea Yates is great example of determining if a person of mental illness is insane or not. The cognitive test is one way to test if the defendant knowing committed the crime and knew it was wrong or right. The gives many example of how poor our mental health treatment in America is, many people released from mental hospitals even though they still suffer from mental illness and then go to commit more crimes. In high profile cases defendants who committed murder can be sent to jail and receive mental health care, but it won’t be very good. In murder cases many people want retribution justice and want to killer to pay for his/her crimes, but putting a mentally ill person in jail for the rest of their life does nothing. Today we should focus on rehabilitation justice to treat mentally ill and possible find reasons behind the illness. In order to convict some you must prove mens rea or guilty mind, the person must know what they are doing is wrong. In some cases the defendant could believe that what they did was right, but because they are mentally ill and detached with reality leads to insanity cases.
Key terms: mental illness, retribution, rehabilitation, mens rea, antipsychotic medication, paranoid schizophrenia, CST, cognitive test.
Chapter eight and nine mesh well together on their subject matter of Competence to stand trial (CST) and Insanity. Competence in the case of standing trial details whether a suspect has the mental capacity to be involved in a criminal procedure and able to defend themselves in court. This is an important factor to consider since the suspect (or defendant in this case) has the most to lose should they be found guilty. Even if they’ve committed a heinous crime, if they’re suffering from some cognitive issue of the likes of schizophrenia they deserve a chance for treatment so that they can defend themselves. That also brings to mind the idea of insanity being a different criterion, even a different option than competence to stand trial, with competence being at the time of the trial, and insanity being along the lines of occurring during the crime itself. Both terms are in fact not psychological but are legal terms, which I have learned about in another psychology class. It astounds me though that so many people just presume it is a psychological term (for insanity anyway).
For a defendant to be able to claim to be not competent, there are a variety of functions that they have to be able to claim, some would include understanding their current situation (legally), the consequences of being convicted, the ability to communicate with their counsel, and aid in the strategy of their defense among many others. There were several other types of competency mentioned in the chapter, like the competency to plead guilty. The criteria for that are rather simple with the defendant must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Which is pretty straightforward, it reminds me of the chapter on false confessions; in that what if someone under duress confess’ and then pleads guilty? Is that still considered being competent? Just something I thought about during the reading. One issue that has come about with the use of CST though is Malingering, or exaggeration of mental or other disabilities to lighten the severity of the case against one’s self. It’s ironic that as I was typing this the news was on and the judge for the James Holmes case announced a not guilty plea for Holmes because of the need to move the trial forward. He still has him the option to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, which brings us to the material in chapter nine!
Insanity is essentially the exact opposite of cst. Insanity is whether the defendant at the time of the crime was aware or had the mental faculties to know what they were doing. This was exemplified throughout the chapter but I felt was especially shown in the case of Andrea Yates. Yates in the height of post partum depression drowned her five children. During her hearings she was able to stand trial and was deemed competent but in the two Texas trials the first saw the jury declaring she knew the difference of right and wrong with the second jury saying she obviously didn’t. So in this case you can see that it’s not a simple black and white checklist of saying yep they’re insane or not. Over the years insanity law has changed based on landmark cases. One of the biggest changes I believe came from the case of John Hinkley after his attempted assassination of Reagan. In 1984 the Insanity Defense Reform Act was passed. What it did was return that all defendants would be presumed to have some competency at the time of the crime. It would then fall on them and their defense team to prove with the preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the crime they were not in control of their own mental state. Another final point that I found interesting was the plea of guilty but mentally ill. Which would have the defendant being found guilty of their crimes and still sent to jail, but they would receive treatment for their condition during their incarceration. So to
Terms: Insanity, Guilty but mentally ill, preponderance, schizophrenia, Competence to Stand Trial, Malingering, Insanity Defense Reform Act, Competency to plead guilty.
Competency to stand trial is the ability to participate adequately in criminal proceedings and to aid in one’s own defense. It has two parts: the ability to interact rationally with a lawyer, and the ability to understand how court processes work. The legal system has come up with this definition for the defendant’s own sake. Because their own liberty is at stake, it is important for them to understand what is going on at every stage of the criminal justice process. If the defendant can fully participate in their own defense, it is more likely to the verdict will be fair. Defendants need to be able to give their lawyers information about the crime and witnesses who testify. If the lawyer does not have this information, a wrongful conviction may occur. This issue of a defendant’s CST can be brought up at any time during the trial as long as there is a bona fide doubt, or a reasonable doubt, that the defendant many not be competent to stand trial. CST is an aspect that we really see an intersection of the legal system and psychology. Though CST refers to the psychological state of the defendant, it is a legal term, not a psychological term. Still, a mental health professional evaluates the defendant using their psychological training, orientation, experience, and sophistication. They also use general psychology tests such as the MMPI. Psychologists also can serve as an expert witness and provide an opinion on the defendant’s CST. Clinical psychology is a huge part of CST, as the most common mental health problems diagnosed in defendants found to be incompetent are psychotic illnesses (such as schizophrenia), severe affective disorders (such as bipolar disorder), and mental retardation.
Competency to stand trial refers to the psychological state of the defendant at the time of the trial. Insanity, on the other hand, refers to the psychological state of the defendant at the time of the crime. Insanity means that a defendant lacked moral responsibility and culpability when they committed the crime, and therefore should not be held responsible for their actions, or be punished. This is another area that psychology and the legal system directly interact. Clinical psychologists are crucial to this legal concept. This makes sense, because they have training and experience of evaluating people’s mental states. However, they cannot diagnose the defendant with any established psychiatric diagnoses that they are used to. They must fit the defendant’s mental state into the legal concept of insanity. They must decide if the defendant knew right from wrong when they committed the crime. Even if jurors believe the defendant was insane at the time of the crime, they may be reluctant to give this verdict. They may be believe that the defendant will go home free, when in reality, the defendant will probably spend more time locked up in a psychiatric hospital than they would have in prison. Because this is such a complicated gray area that can be impossible to know for sure, other options have been created for the jury to decide on. Guilty but mentally ill is an alternative to the insanity verdict. In this case, the defendant is found guilty of the crime and sentenced to prison, but required to receive psychological treatment.
The issue of adolescent competence really surprised me. First of all, I did not know that juveniles (ages 11-17) were tried in adult court when charged with serious crimes. Apparently this has been going on in all 50 states since the 1990s! News to me! The idea of competence of juveniles is a bit more controversy. Some would argue, as would I, that adolescents have intellectual immaturity. This would prevent them from fully understanding how court processes work, and inhibit their ability to interact rationally with a lawyer. This means that all juveniles should be evaluated for competency to stand trial, and most of them would be found incompetent. The book even provided a study that supported this. When comparing adolescents and adults in terms of their functioning on CST-abilities, adolescents were less capable in legal judgment, understanding, and decision-making. This is not surprising. Developmental psychology tells us that the frontal lobe in our brains (which is responsible for executive functioning like decision making, reasoning, judgment, memory) is not fully developed until our early 20’s.
The book noted that the public has many misbeliefs about the use of the insanity defense. It seems that I am no exception. After reading this section, I now know that many of my beliefs were myths. I had no idea that the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all felony cases. Of that 1%, it defense fails about 75% of the time. The media blows up the very few cases (such as Andrea Yates) that the insanity defense is used, and it seems that those are the cases that stick in your mind. I also learned that when the insanity defense is used, defendants do not get to just go home with no consequences. They are institutionalized, and typically spend more time in an institution than they would have spent in prison with a guilty verdict. These myths can largely impact a jury’s decision, because this information is not often provided to them.
My views on the insanity defense have definitely changed. I never understood how this could be a possible verdict if the defendant gets to go home scott free after committing a murder. Now I see that this is not the case; they still have consequences for their horrendous actions. However, I am now more aware of the real problems with the insanity defense. The legal term of insanity is so constricted and so difficult for a clinical psychologist to make a decision on. They have to go beyond their psychological knowledge and put the defendant’s actions into a narrow category that is outside of their own field. There is also the concern of a jury’s knowledge about insanity. If the jury is not enlightened about certain aspects (such as the defendant having to go to a psychiatric institution), they may not make the best decision regarding insanity.
Terms: competency to stand trial, bona fide doubt, expert witness, clinical psychology, MMPI, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, mental retardation, juveniles, developmental psychology, frontal lobe, insanity, clinical psychologist, guilty but mentally ill
Chapters eight and nine were both fairly interesting. I did not have much of a knowledge in either competency to stand trial (CST) or the insanity plea. I learned a lot of new information about these topics that I found interesting. These chapters gave very in depth descriptions of what these two types incompetent defendants are.
Chapter 8 discussed CST and how defendants can be classified as either competent to stand trial or incompetent. There are a number of important elements to determine whether or not the defendant is incompetent such as: understand the pleas available, understand the charges, understand the roles of the judge, defense counsel and prosecutor, communicate with defense counsel, help find witnesses, help develop strategy, and act appropriately during trial. All of these things are very important in deciding whether or not someone is CST because if they cannot do all of these things it makes it harder for them to present their case well enough to have a chance to prove their innocence. It is important for defendants to be competent in order to make the trial as fair as possible.
One of the most interesting things I read in this chapter about CST was when I read the quote about if a defendant denies their right to an attorney they should be classified as incompetent because it is such a bad decision. It is the defense council's job to present evidence that a defendant is incompetent. Even if the defendant does not want to plead incompetent the ethical guidelines promote the attorney to raise the issue of incompetence.
Competency evaluations are relied on quite heavily to determine whether or not a defendant is incompetent. The defense attorney can request competency tests in order to gain an advantage. There are two types of competency tests. The first is an in-patient test in which the defendant can be observed from anywhere between weeks to months, and the evaluators can receive information from other faculty that the defendant interacts with such as, guards, nurses, administrators, or other mental health professionals. The second type is an outpatient evaluation. These evaluations are much more common that inpatient evaluations and are usually done in prisons or local clinics. They are probably more common because they are cheaper and do not intrude on the rights of the defendant as much as the inpatient evaluations. I found it interesting that it is believed that the judge or jury should be responsible for determining whether or not the defendant is competent even though the psychologists provide the evaluations. I would have thought that the psychologist would be in charge of making the final decision of competence but it makes sense that it would be a judge because the judge usually makes all final decisions in any trial.
The section about adolescents in trials was very interesting. As the book talked about it should be important for their to be more thorough evaluations of competency for adolescents because their brains are less developed and they have not learned as much as adults about the court system or any other legal issues.
The restoration of competency also interested me because it talked about what happens if someone is not competent within the foreseeable future and ultimately will never be able to stand trial. In some cases they are sent to involuntary civil commitment proceedings.
Chapter eight also talked a lot about different methods of testing CST. Some of these tests I have heard of before and others I have not. Some of them are forensic assessment instruments (FAI's), MMPI-2, and competency screening tests.
Chapter nine focussed on whether or not the defendants are insane or were insane at the time of the crime. It started off talking about the case of Andrea Yates. I had known about her killing her children, but I did not know that she went through two trials. I thought it was interesting that the first trial was impacted so much by the faulty memory of Dr. Dietz who presented false information, which appears to have impacted the verdict, because in the second trial when that information was not presented she was found not guilty, and was sentenced to a mental health facility until she is found to no longer be a threat to herself or others. Insanity is stated in the book as being the state of the mind at the time the crime was committed. By this definition it does not matter if the defendant went insane after committing the crime, but I suppose that if that happened they could be deemed incompetent to stand trial.
After the Hinckley case a number of things developed in Insanity Law. The first is the Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA), in which the defense would need to provide clear evidence that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime. This is known as an affirmative defense. Experts would no longer be able to include their personal opinion on whether or not the defendant is insane but rather just present information so the jury may make their own conclusions on the sanity of the person. This is referred to as ultimate issue testimony. The guilty but mentally ill verdict is permitted in 13 states and is a verdict that allows the defendant to be imprisoned and receive treatment for their mental health problems or be transferred to a mental health facility.
In both CST and insanity malingering is an important thing to be considered. It is possible for the defendants to exaggerate or fake symptoms so they may be granted the insanity plea. The case of Bianchi was an excellent example of malingering because he faked having multiple personality disorder so he could receive NGRI but luckily an expert in hypnosis observed he was faking.
All in all I thought both of these chapters were very interesting and had a lot of important information that closely relates psychology to law. I thought it was interesting all of the different ways people can be classified as incompetent to stand trial and also all of the important insanity standards throughout history.
Terms: CST, incompetent, in-patient evaluation, out-patient evaluation, foreseeable future, involuntary civil commitment proceedings, FAI, MMPI-2, competency screening tests, insanity, IDRA, affirmative defense, ultimate issue testimony, GBMI, and malingering.
Chapter 8 was interesting but felt as though it was a little of a review. I don’t remember if we talked about this in class already but if not I learned about this in another class. This chapter focuses on the competence of a suspect. The term competency to stand trial is an evaluation prior to trial, by a forensic psychologist. This evaluation will determine whether or not the person is able to fully partake in their own defense. Competency refers to their present state, not the state at the time of the crime. Prior to studying psychology I didn’t know there was a difference in the term competency and the insanity plea. After taking a few courses I understood that insanity plea has to do with the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime.
A forensic psychologist is a great way to look at how psychology and law correlate. You need to have knowledge of the legal system and they are able to testify on behalf of a defendant or plaintiff. A forensic psychologist has extensive knowledge on the justice system and also has to complete educating in order to evaluate a fate of a plaintiff by determining whether or not they are competent or insane. Having this type of knowledge can determine someone’s fate, therefore they have to be well trained and know exactly what they are talking about.
Chapter 9 talks about the insanity defense. I personally think this is a great thing for our legal system to have. I know that it gets abused but it’s still worth having. The insanity defense is when someone claims to be mentally challenged and therefore unaccountable for their actions. The chapter talked about the Andrea Yates case and the insanity plea. In her case she drowned her children in the bath tub and was convicted. She appealed it and got out on an insanity plea. While she may have has postpartum depression, she neglected to get help for it. And in my eyes, that would be putting your child in harm’s way, obviously. Even with this I still think she should have gotten some prison time for endangering the welfare of her children. She’s their mother she should have been CONSTANTLY looking out for them. In my opinion she should have done time for endangering the welfare of her children and then been hospitalized for her “previous known” psychosis. I don’t remember all of the details of her case but I wouldn’t assume she was actually previously known to have postpartum psychosis.
My views haven’t really changed any after reading these chapter, it has just opened my eyes to new things. For example I didn’t k now that there was a MMPi-2 designed for this reason, and the competency screening tests. There is no actual standard to determine the competency so these evaluations can be a little more difficult to assess. Also, I’ve heard of the term malingering but I had forgotten what it meant. I learned that it is used to describe someone who’s lying or faking symptoms in order to get what they want.
Terms: competence to stand trial, suspect, evaluation, forensic psychologist, defendant, plaintiff, convicted, postpartum depression, endangering the welfare, psychosis, MMPI-2, malingering.
Chapter 8 discusses the competency to stand trial. Competency means the capability of being able to communicate and help with one’s defense in a criminal “proceeding”. Competency indicates the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the trial. This term may have to deal with one’s mental situation; however, it is a legal term, not psychological. Competency consists of two parts. One section is the ability to understand how the criminal justice system works (this includes the charges and possible outcomes, the pleas available, and the roles of people around them) and the other is the capacity to work with one’s attorney coherently. This includes the ability to build a defense case, a strategy for cross-examination and to help identify possible witness/experts to aid in the defense. Competency is automatically given to defendants. It is up to the defense to prove otherwise. This is called presumption of competency to stand trial. If the defense or judge has a bona fide doubt about a defendant’s competency, then the defendant needs to be evaluated. If a defendant is found to be incompetent, competency can try to be restored within the foreseeable future. If the incompetent person is found to be gravely disabled, then the charges can be dropped and brought up at a later time if competency has been restored.
There are many techniques and tests that have been invented or modified to try to restore defendants to competency. These tests are called forensic assessment instruments or FAIs. These tests are designed to determine if the defendant is truly incompetent or is malingering. Malingering is the deliberate attempt of faking a mental illness or disability to put off being charged in the criminal justice system.
Insanity is discussed in chapter 9. In contrast to competency, which is one’s state of mind during trial, insanity is one’s state of mind during the crime. This term is also a legal term and is not used by psychologists. This label does not relate to any specific mental diagnoses. It suggests that the person who committed the crime lacked the ability to know between right and wrong of their crime and they should not be punished. Mens rea is the beliefs that a person must know their actions were wrong. This is needed in order to associate the punishment to those actions. Retribution on the other hand, is the perception that one’s punishment for a crime should be equivalent to the crime they committed regardless of their mental state. The textbook then discusses how three important cases have changed the definition of insanity over the last few centuries. These three cases are the M’Naghten Case, the Durham Case, and the Hinckley Case. In 1984, the insanity defense was given back to the defendant to prove. This new law was called the Insanity Defense Reform Act, or IDRA. Psychologists have also worked to develop different techniques and tests in order to help prove whether a defendant is legally “insane”. So far, none of them have proven to be truly 100% reliable.
I found it interesting to know that even if a person is found to be malingering competency, they could still be charged for their original crime, if/when they are found to regain competency. I did not know that four states (Montana, Utah, Kansas, and Idaho) completely eradicated the insanity plea. I personally think the “Guilty but Mentally Ill” verdict would be a better fit for defendants who would like to plead “insanity.” To me, the GBMI plea seems to be more along the lines of a confession that says, “Yes. I did it. But I need mental help.” Meanwhile the insanity plea says, “I didn’t mean to do it. I was not in my right mind, so I should not be held accountable.” I think my view of insanity hasn’t changed even after reading this. I still believe people should be held accountable for their actions regardless of if they were “not in their right mind”. However, I do believe people should get both the mental and physical help they need in order to live more satisfying (even if it may be in prison or in a mental health facility) lives. This is why I believe the GBMI verdict would be a better alternative.
Key terms: Competency, criminal proceeding, presumption of CST, cross-examination, bona fide doubt, restoration of CST, gravely disabled, FAIs, malingering, insanity, mens rea, retribution, IDRA, GBMI
Summarize chapters 8 and 9
Chapter 8 started off with a story about a man named Russell Weston, who because of his incompetence to stand trial has yet to be punished for his crimes. The introduction served as the foundation of just how closely psychology and law truly are. A person's competency to stand trial and the meaning of it is explained completely and it is very clear after you read the first section. One key point mentioned is the modern conception of Competency to stand trial (CST) which was through a 1960 case "Dusky v. United States". It was because of a psychologist evaluation that Dusky was confirmed with having schizophrenia even through the judge ruled that he was competent it was later ruled that he was not competent. The chapter did clarify that the term CST is a legal and not a psychological concept which is what I found most surprising. The chapter covers the 10 functions that are included as elements of CST. A core subject is how the criminal justice system deals with incompetent defendants and the different CST evaluations and the issues with expert testimony. There are certain characteristics of incompetent defendants that is also covered as well as adolescent incompetence to stand trial. There is an interesting hot topic in this chapter which covers a term called statutory exclusions [automatically requires an adolescent defendant who commits certain serious crimes (murder, manslaughter) and is of a certain age (13-17) to be tried in adult court]. There is a statement on mental disability and the death penalty from the American Psychological Association (APA) as well as numerous evaluations and different procedures like the Fitness Interview Test-Revised, the evaluation of competency to Stand Trial Instrument-Revised and the Computer-assisted determination of competence to proceed. The process is lengthy and very formal. The is also a test to make sure the defendant is not faking incompetence which is known as malingering and that is called the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms.
As chapter 9 began with the Andrea Yates case and how the insanity defense played a key role in her trial you really have to acknowledge the psychology role here. The trial of Andrea Yates is the first section and gives reasons why a clinical psychologist is needed to plea using the insanity defense. The next main subject which is postpartum mental illness which is what Andrea Yates suffered from and also defines maternal filicide. The evolution of the insanity law three important cases as well as their consequences are detailed in chapter 9. There is a close relation to guilty but mentally ill which is not quite the insanity plea but that is only in 13 states giving the jury an alternative. There is a clear cut way that jurors need to define insanity and it is described along with the tests and techniques for assessing insanity. Malingering is again mentioned in this chapter and the chapter ends with the larger context of insanity laws.
What information was most surprising or interesting to you?
I did not realize the clear cut way that jurors just like psychological experts have to evaluate insanity cases with that all-or-nothing judgement. Are they insane or not? It seems very strange that we leave the decision ultimately up to 12 jurors and rely on an expert or psychologist to determine the sentence or punishment.
What do you know now that you did not know prior to reading these chapters?
That a defendant has the right to refuse treatment and CST and instead of directly educating the defendants on the legal steps, the restoration of CST typically involves treatment with antipsychotic medication. And there are so many negative side effects even the newer drugs are bad.
How have your views of insanity changed (or not) through these readings?
Absolutely, I did not realize the different steps and procedures that are involved in pleading insane and whether or not a person is competent to stand trial is also very consuming. The chapters were so detailed in their descriptions that I really learned about about both concepts and my views certainly have broadened. I now know that psychology is very much involved when it comes to using the insanity plea and that clinical psychologist play a key role in those circumstances.
Terms: Incompetence, trial, punished, crimes, psychology, law, competency, psychologist, judge, competency to stand trial (CST), Dusky v. United States, competent, stator exclusions, defendant, mental disability, death penalty, American Psychological Association, techniques, evaluations, Fitness Interview Test-Revised, malingering, Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, insanity defense, insanity laws, clinical psychologists, plea, postpartum mental illness, maternal filicide, evolution, cases, tests, assessing, jurors, juries, experts, judgment, sentence, punishment, negative, side effects, rights, treatment, antipsychotic medications, drugs, restoration and Competency to Stand Trial Test-Revised.
Chapter eight begins by discussing events that happened at the U.S. Capitol building in 1998. A man came in and first shot an officer after going through the metal detector, then shot a detective guarding in Senators Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert's office. This man has been in prison for ten years, but has yet to stand the trial for his crimes. He is not competence for trial and this means he does not have the ability to participate adequately in criminal proceedings and to aid in one;s own defense. When a criminal can not understand what is going on during trial, that means he is too impaired to stand trial, more than likely because of a mental illness. The Functional Elements of CST include the defendants' ability to understand their current legal situation, understand the charges against them, understand the pleas available, understand the possible penalties if they were convicted, understand the roles of the judge, defense counsel, and prosecutor, trust and communicate with defense counsel, help locate witnesses, aid in developing a strategy for cross-examining witnesses, act appropriately during the trial and make appropriate decisions about trial strategy. There are so many functions because a person could try and pretend to not be competent to get out of a trial and maybe not be sent to prison. But, if they pass all these, than the do not have CST. CST is a little different from Competency to Plead Guilty and waive and attorney. To plea guilty, it must be knowing, voluntary and intelligent. The criminal justice system deals with incompetent defendants by going through CST evaluations and ultimate expert testimony. They receive a bona fide doubt or reasonable doubts from these experts about the defendant not being competent enough for trial. They also provide a collateral source of information about the defendant's behavior. It talks about the many tests and techniques that are involved in evaluating the CST and decide whether or not the defendant is malingering. Malingering is the problem of intentional faking mental illness or disability motivated by an external incentive. It is faking to gain a positive outcome of the situation, but Russell Weston did not and I don't believe he should have even thought he didn't have CST. If someone murders people they should be thrown in jail. I learned a lot in this chapter because I had never heard of CST before. I only had heard of being not guilty for insanity because I would consider Weston to be insane, because he is, but also doesn't understand a trial. Insanity is just not being aware of what crime they had committed.
These leads to Chapter 9 where it talks about the Andrea Yates and how she killed her children in the bathtub in her home because she was insane. She was found not guilty because of insanity and I think that is insane not to send someone to prison for that. If a person is insane then it is hard for them to change especially if they sufferer from a mental illness, but they are found not guilty. My views about insanity did not change after reading about it. I do not think that people can do whatever they want because they are insane and get away with it. Andrea Yates should still be in prison for what she did for her children. She was insane but is that justifiable? I don't believe it is. That is when Malingering comes into play with insanity also because everyone lies and they could be lying about their sanity just to get away with it.
Terms: insanity, not guilty by reason of insanity, bona fide doubt, competence, CST, competency to plea guilty, malingering
Competence and insanity: Both can be used in a legal context to describe the defendant. Competence in its legal definition refers to the present ability that the individual at hand is able to perform necessary personal or legal functions. Insanity in legal terms refers to the criminal state of mind at the time the crime was committed. Both ones competency to stand trial and whether or not the individual was insane at the time the crime was committed can have a huge impact on the outcome of that criminal prosecution.
There are many different variables that go into ones CST. In chapter 8 the text describes ten functional elements to help clarify that CST is not a psychological concept, but a legal concept. The intelligence of the suspect is the most important variable in determining whether that individual is able to understand his legal right. I found the flexible standard to be an interesting theory of CST. The flexible standard argues that for a more serious crime, the suspect would have to go through a much more complex and in depth process to determine intelligence and competency; compared to a lesser crime would only need simple competency testing. I don't agree with this argument. There are no variations in being incompetent, no matter the crime committed. It's like arguing that someone can be more dead than another deceased. However, there are many variables that can effect an individual's CST, socially isolated, unmarried, unemployed, uneducated, drug abuse, lower than average intelligence all play a part in the defendants competency.
Insanity goes hand in hand with ones competency. Obviously if a person is determined to be insane, their ability to be competent enough to stand trial is often effected. On the other hand an individual can be determined incompetent but not be determined as insane; as stated in chapter 9. The individual normally appointed to determining insanity at the time of the crime is a clinical psychologist; other third parties like nurses and correctional officers can also monitor the suspects attitudes and behavior to better help decide if the suspect is in fact, insane.
My personal attitude on the insanity defense is not very positive. An individual who makes the decision to commit a criminal act, serious or not, should receive the just desert or proper justice for their act. The insanity defense is used to often as a last resort for a defense that is dead in the water. As discussed in chapter 9, Andrea Yates is a prime example of improper use of the insanity defense simply because she had no other option but guilty. The evidence is overwhelming and the defense is basically shooting in the dark for a lesser sentence. Deterrence, retribution and incapacitation of a criminal must all be considered in the court of law. The justice system is expected deter other criminal acts in society in fear of the punishment, provide retribution to for the criminal act in honor the victims, and incapacitate the criminal in order to prevent other criminal behavior by that individual. The insanity defense prevents all three forms of Justice where justice is deserved. For an individual to be excused for a brutal criminal due to irresistible impulse or volitional capacity is unacceptable. The use of Malingering is often matched with CST and the insanity defense.
In a larger context, some individuals do need treatment and professional consul I can not deny that no one criminal is identical to another and that some special circumstances may need to be made for a suspect who is not competent enough to stand trial or understand his or her legal rights. However, I do not believe that malingering and a weak insanity defense can excuse the proper justice being served to each and every rightfully convicted criminal.
Key Terms: psychology, clinical psychologist, malingering, insanity defense, CST, competency, deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, just desert, flexible standard, criminal prosecution, defendant.
One important aspect of both chapters that I needed to distinguish before writing my response was the difference between criteria for insanity defense and criteria for competent to stand trial. Basically in order for a defendant to plead insanity, he/she must not understand the differences between right and wrong. That is someone without full awareness of the crimes they committed cannot be held responsible for their actions. A person who does not know their actions were wrong does not meet the retributive goals of punishment, which in essence claims an eye for an eye. On the other hand, I formed my own perspective for understanding competency to stand trial. Basically these are the people suffering from severe mental illnesses such as paranoid schizophrenia. Because of their mental illness, they do not have the ability to participate adequately in criminal proceedings, and to aid in their own defense.
To better understand CST it makes sense to discuss Dusky v. United States. Milton Dusky kidnapped a fifteen year old girl and had his son's friends rape her in a secluded environment. His crimes bring up an important aspect in the CST defense. "A competent defendant must have sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." The word present in the definition refers to the psychological state at the time of trial, not when the defendant committed the crime. This particular definition is crucial because a defendant could suffer from schizophrenia or any other severe mental illness at the time of trial, but if he/she was deemed competent during the crime then CST does not apply. Putting this definition another way would be describing preponderance of the evidence which means the judge must be more than 50% certain that the defendant is incompetent.
The Roman Empire law said that people found to be non compos mentis-without mastery of the mind-should not be held responsible for their crimes. This particular thought of mastery of the mind has evolved into mens rea, which means guilty mind, an awareness of the wrongfulness of the crime. Insanity defense, in my opinion, could be hard to judge because how does anyone know whether or not a person was sane when committing a crime. In contrast to CST a person who is "legally insane" may have the mental capacity to have a reasonable conversation with their lawyer and understand the legal proceedings. Furthermore, a person who is insane at the time of the crime may not be insane when on trial.
One thought I had regarding both of these definitions was whether they can be mutually inclusive or exist together. It makes sense to assume that a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia may also be insane, or vice versa. How then do psychologists diagnose such a person and what sort of defense would that person receive. Secondly, when I was reading the chapters the thought occurred to me of a person faking mental illness in hopes of receiving a lesser sentence. This is called malingering and has been a problem in the legal system for some time. One test, the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) is administered automatically in any sort of CST case and has gone a long way to deter people from faking illnesses.
terms used: paranoid schizophrenia, malingering, SIRS, non compos mentis, mens rea, preponderance of the evidence, Dusky v. United States, CST, competence, insanity, retribution
Chapter 8 openes with a crime that had been commited. In 1998 Russel Weston Jr. entered the U.s Capitol Building and opened fire. After the incident, it was discoved that Weston had a mental illness, and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. The was not fit to stand trail. This chapter wil explore compentncy when it relates to criminal defendents. How the criminal justice system deals with incompetence individuals. How to use test and techniques to evaluate a persons competency. Compentency to stand trial means, the ability to participate in adquately in criminal proceedings and to aid in one’s own defense. In otherwords the a person had to understand how the justice system works and also be able to interact with an attorney. There are seveal concernes for CST two of them being fairness to the defendant and public respect for the criminal system. Something new that I learned was in the section with the Dusky standard. I did not know that the Supreme Court had standards for competence. I just thought psychologist evaluated you and decided whether or not you were fit to stand trial. I had no idea that there are actually two main standard for CST. In the Dusky standard section, a mentally ill man was charged with kidnapping and unlawful transportation of a 15 year old girl. Due to CST, which refers to the ability to interact rationally with an attorney, Dusky’s attorney appealed the quilty verdict against Dusky because the exsisting trial record did not support his comepetnce to stand trial. The other component of CST is the individual on trial must have the ability to understand how court process works. It is important to recognized the defendant’s ability, not his willingness, to perform these functions. Meaning if someone refuses or does understand but fakes like they do not understand that person is still fit to stand trail, it those who truly do not understand the two components. There are two ways the Supreme Court determines the functioning of a defendant, presumtion of CST and preponderance of the evidence. When an attorney believes their client is incompetant, the presiding judge will order a psychological evaluation. CSTs can be ordered by judge or attorneys at any time if ther is bona fide doubt. The defendents evaluations are most likely held at an instution which can provide collateral sources of information. Because there is not gold standard for deciding if a defendant is competent or incompetent there had been a number of assesments created. Among these assesments, some assessment that were identified in the text are Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory second edition, a general measure of psychopathology based on 576 true or false questions. Another assessment is Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retaradation, a open-ened response and mulitipule choice questionaire assessing the abiltiy to understand how a case moves through the criminal justice system. Chapter 9 begins with a woman Andrea Yates who drowned her five children. The case at the beginning of the chapter with Yates was most interesting to me because she tried several time to kill herself and she still was trusted with her children. I think it was most intresting to me because of the fact that I am one of eight children and my biological mother had five of us at 23 years old and it really makes me appriciate her more that she had the strength to put up with all of us. Her trail lasted a while because clinical psychologist were determining if Yates was insane. At the end of her trial she was found guitly. Yates had a second trial due to faulty information. After the second trial Yates was found not guilty due to insanity. Insanity refers to the ciminals’s state of mind at the time the cime was commited. Yates was diagnosed with postpartum mental illness which she had been taking medication to manage it but had stopped before the crime was committed. Some people believe justice should be served for all so there are prespectives of punishments when in comes to the insanity law. Retibution persepctive suggest that the punishment for a crime should be proprtionate to the harm committed. In other words “an eye for an eye.” However if the offender of the crime not understand what he or she did, then the offender is not morally responsible for his or her actions. Another perspective is deterrence which suggest that instilling fear of punishment in people will prevent future criminal acts. There are two different deterrence, specific and general. Mens rea, to be found guity, it is not enough to commit a crimminal act, one also must possess a guilty mind. In otherword in the early years people believe that if you felt guilty about the crime you commited then you were aware of your acts. The chapter then talks about three important cases, the M’Naghten case, the Durham case and the Hinckley case. These cases are important because they contributed developments for insanity laws. There are also test and techniques scientist have come up with for assessing insanity some of the assesments include, Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation, attempts to screen out defendants whose crimes were not influenced by a significant mental disorder. Becaue of this chapter my views on insanity have change somewhat but not a lot . I know understand that if a psychologist cannot have a oppinion about your insanity they can only state their findings and if psychologist findings find you sane, the jury can still find your not guilty for reason of insanity, like Yates. I also have learned that there is a difference from being insane and being competent to stand trial. I think before reading the chapter I believed they were the same thing, like if you were incompetent to stand trial that that meant you were insane.
Terms: Paranoid Schizophrenia, Competency to Stand Trial, Presumtion of CST, Preponderance of the Evidence, Bona Fide Doubt, Collateral of Information, Gold Standard, MMPI-2, CAST-MR, Postpartum Mentally Illness, Insanity, Retribution, Deterrence: General, Specific, MSE, Defendant,
Chapter eight begins with a brief story about Russell Weston Jr. entering the US Capitol and shooting multiple people before being captured. It was found out that Weston had been previously diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, causing him to lose touch with reality. Paranoid schizophrenics often suffer from auditory hallucinations, thought disorders, and delusions that all affect their behavior. Weston has yet to be considered competent to stand trial, which is when someone has sufficient present ability to perform the necessary personal and legal functions needed in court, especially CST. The text goes on to further describe CST and its origins [Dusky v. United States (1960)] and how it explicitly says that the person needs to be competent at the time of trial and that the psychological state at the time of the crime is not relevant. There have been multiple Supreme Court cases dealing with incompetency and there has since been the presumption of CST establishment, meaning the defense must prove that their client is incompetent and the preponderance of evidence standard is used in determining that. Being deemed competent means that the defendant meets the minimal standards of being able to cooperate with counsel and that they are aware of the charges and the consequences. It is under debate by many if CST should be a flexible standard, making it harder to be deemed competent in more complex cases. Because the Supreme Court held that guilty pleas must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent in 1938 and the outcome of the Indiana v. Edwards (2008) case, there is a requirement for judges to appoint attorneys to competent but mentally ill people if they try to waive their right to counsel. Attorneys and judges almost always adhere to competency tests for defendants when necessary on ethical and sometimes strategic bases.
Expert testimony is often helpful in determining the mental state of defendants. The evaluations are either done in an inpatient basis, which helps with collateral sources of information, or on an outpatient basis. There is also controversy over the ultimate issue testimony because many experts believe that the judge and jury should be making the decision that is at the heart of the case, instead of them. Many universal characteristics of incompetent defendants include but aren’t limited to them being socially isolated, unmarried, unemployed, poorly educated, below average intelligence, suffering from psychotic illnesses, affective disorders or mental retardation. Juvenile competence is also a hotly debated topic, the text describes a study between juveniles and young adults and that there are vast differences in their knowledge and abilities. Many people who are deemed incompetent end up staying in a mental institution for longer than their sentences would have been which has warranted the courts to check in on the defendants and only hold them for the foreseeable future. Sometimes these people need to be held involuntarily but only if they are gravely disabled or an imminent danger to themselves or the community. To restore CST the defendants are usually treated with antipsychotic medication. The text discusses many, many ways to determine a defendant’s CST but they also have issues of malingering, which is when someone is faking a mental illness or disability. One specific test that helps determine if this is happening is Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) which asks the defendant’s their varying symptoms.
Chapter nine begins with a description of Andrea Yates and her crime of killing her children. The question of insanity and the question in the Yates case was where she knew the difference between right and wrong. The text goes on to explicitly say that insanity is the most controversial area in psychology and the law. Insanity deals with the mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime and clinical psychologists are used to determine this. Yates was diagnosed with postpartum mental illness and was found not insane in her first trial but concluded not insane in her second one. Insanity developed on the basis that it is immoral to punish people who are not responsible for their criminal behavior. Deterrence is one of the most common reasons that punishments follow convictions but specific and general deterrence does not have the same effect on mentally insane people. To be found guilty of a crime a person must have mens rea, a guilty mind, but in cases like Andrea Yates there is much question about whether that is present or not.
There were three important cases that have reformed insanity laws. The M’Naghten Case, in which Daniel M’Naghten was determined not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) but concluded in a new rule, the M’Naghten rule. It had three components and is now referred to as a cognitive test because it emphasizes knowing and understanding the difference between right and wrong. In addition to this rule is the irresistible impulse which takes into account a defendant’s volitional capacity. The second case was the Durham case and produced the new Durham standard for insanity. The Durham standard states that the accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or mental defect. The ALI was not happy with the past two standards and created the ALI Standard, which included a type of M’Naughten cognitive test with the impulse-like volitional prong. The third case was the Hinckley Case. The Hinckley Case brought a change in the burden of proof, requiring the prosecution to prove that the defendant was sane instead of insane. From all of these cases came the IDRA, affirmative defense, ultimate issue testimony, and the move to a higher burden of proof in all cases- the clear and convincing standard.
Some states now have the guilty but mentally ill verdict (GBMI), which sentences people to prison for their crimes and requires them to receive medical treatment for their illnesses. There is also the mens rea defense that is only available for particular crimes like first degree murder. There are many different tests and techniques that can be used to further determine insanity and mental states but they are almost always under scrutiny and are always subject to change and science improves. I found it surprising that the development of insanity defenses has change so much in the past 100 years and that it is always under debate. I did not know about the twinkie defense case and am surprised that it actually worked in a court of law. I also did not know that it is hard to determine what the mind-frame of a defendant was during the time of the crime compared to the time of trial. My views on insanity have broadened and become much more refined after reading these chapters. I know understand what the differences between insanity and competency are and how they have major roles in the legal system and in psychology.
Terms: paranoid schizophrenia, thought disorder, delusions, competence, competency to stand trial (CST), presumption of CST, preponderance of the evidence, flexible standard, collateral sources of information, ultimate issue testimony, foreseeable future, gravely disabled, antipsychotic medication, restoration of CST, malingering, SIRS, insanity, clinical psychologists, postpartum mental illness, mens rea, M’Naughten rule, NGRI, cognitive test, irresistible impulse, volitional capacity, Durham Standard, ALI Standard, burden of proof, IDRA, affirmative defense, ultimate issue testimony, clear and convincing evidence standard, GBMI, mens rea defense, first degree murder, the twinkie defense.
After reading chapters 8 and 9 I have a better understanding of competence and insanity in the legal system. The book gives the description of competency as the ability to understand our wrongdoings and defend ourselves in court. Competency is a legal, not psychological term, and is pretty ambiguous. In a court room, the evaluation of this is the competency to stand trail. This is a legal term that evaluates whether or not a suspect is able to stand trail. They must be competent of the court proceeding and charges against them. They also must be able to plead guilty and the ability to wave their rights knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Suspects are presumed competent to stand trail unless they are proven otherwise and it is the defense's responsibility to prove if their defendant is incompetent.
Evaluation for competence is called Bona Fide Doubt, our if there is doubt of the suspect's ability to defend themselves. Judges have to determine whether or not the defendant is competent. Preponderance of evidence states that judges need to have at least 51 percent certainty in order to make a ruling. The Dusky standard, enacted after Dusky v. U.S., states that there must be sufficient present ability to consult with their attorney with a reasonable degree of rationality and factual understanding of the proceedings against them. The book also went into detail over adolescent competence and whether or not they are old enough to be sent to trial for a serious crime, as well as competency to be executed. Some tests to determine actions in these cases are the Fitness Interview Test-Revised and the Trail for Defendants with Mental Retardation. If a person is deemed as incompetent, the may be ordered to a restoration of competency by the judge and placed in a mental institution for as long as they deem necessary or when competency returns. They may also be given anti psychotic medications.
Next, the book talked about the terms of insanity. Insanity is also an ambiguous term, but more psychological than legal in nature. Insanity is defined as the criminals state of mind at the time of the crime. The book uses the case of Andrea Yates as a pivotal example of insanity used in the courtroom. From a deterrence perspective, criminals need retribution for their actions as punishment. If they did not see their actions as a crime then this can not happen and they are determined to be insane. Criminally insane individuals often have cognitive and volitional difficulties with the premeditation of their crimes. Some tests to determine insanity are the Mental State at the Time of the Offense Screening and the Roger Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scale, which focus on the mental state at the time of the crime. Also, an ultimate issues testimony used when expert testimonies are given to determine insanity. Finally, the book talked about malingering, which is when people fake being mentally ill in order to avoid trial or receive a lesser sentence.
What most interested me about this chapter was the difference between competency and insanity. I had learned about the difference before, but not this as in depth. I found it interesting that a person can commit a crime and then not be competent enough after the fact to be brought up on charges in court. I think it is scary that people can use this and the insanity plea to get out of a harsher sentence. Although, it did comfort me to know that such a small percentage actually use this plea and an even smaller amount are actually successful. My views toward insanity have changed slightly in that I used to think of insanity as being out of touch with reality and now I have a broader definition of the term.
Terms: Competence, Competency to stand trial, Bona Fide Doubt, Preponderance of evidence, Adolescent competency, Competency to be executed, Fitness Interview Test-Revised, Trail for Defendants with Mental Retardation, Deterrence Perspective, Retribution, Restoration of Competence, Dusky Standard, Insanity, Ultimate Issues Testimony, Cognitive Difficulties, Volitional Difficulties, Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening, Roger Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scale
Chapter eight explains all of the different types of competency that exist in the legal system, how those competency levels are most often evaluated by psychology professionals, and how they directly and indirectly affect a defendant in their journey through the legal system. The most crucial type of competency is competency to stand trial. This would mean that the defendant is fully aware of the charges being brought against them, and they have the mental capacity to make informed, logical decisions about those charges, and other aspects of the court proceedings. Something interesting I didn’t know, is how long the must wait if a person is initially deemed incompetent to stand trial. I assumed that if after five years the person was still unable to stand trial that the case would be forgotten about, perhaps dismissed. However, that does not seem to be the case, as the book illustrates with the case of Russell Weston. I also found it interesting how they decide if a child or teenager is competent to stand trial. I assumed it would be more based upon an age cut off due to developmental capacity to commit a crime, and not so heavily rely upon the psychological evaluations of the child’s ability to understand their rights.
Chapter nine discusses only the insanity law, and its evolution throughout history in court proceedings. Insanity law interests me a lot, because it is one of the most difficult defenses to prove, even if the person was insane at the time of crime. I find it the most difficult because of what was discussed in chapter eight, you must be competent to stand a trail, so in order to use an insanity defense in court, you have to have been proven competent enough now to stand trail. But your entire platform is essentially “I was crazy then, but now I’m pretty much alright”, and that is an incredibly difficult thing to get a jury to buy into, especially because as humans, our perception of the truth lies heavily upon what we have personally observed and understand to be real, and not as much upon the information of how something was in the past.
Terms: competency, legal system, psychology professionals, competency to stand trial, defendant, mental capacity, court proceedings, developmental capacity, psychological evaluations, insanity law, insane at the time of crime, jury, perception of the truth, observed
Chapters 8, Competency to Stand Trial (CST), & chapter 9, The Insanity Defense
Chapters 8 and 9 where full of very useful and important information about psychological aspects with in convicting a person. Chapter 8 explains the meaning of competence, and the meaning of what it means to have the competency to stand trial (CST), along with the different evaluations that are done on defendants. Chapter 9 explains the case of Andrea Yates, along with defining what insanity means, when the insanity law was brought into the courts, and how insanity defined by jurors.
First, the legal definition of competence is defined as “whether an individual had sufficient present ability to perform necessary personal or functions”. With that being said, examples of competence include one’s understanding of waiving Miranda rights, of confession, make treatment decisions, execute a will or contract, take care of oneself or finances. If there is any competence issue with any of these, it would generally lead to determining whether the defendant has the competency to stand trial, which is defined as “ability to participate adequately in criminal proceedings and to aid in one’s own defense. A defendant has a right to a trial, but if that defendant does not understand what is being sentenced to them, or what the proceedings are, then is not fair to the defendant regardless of the crime committed. Determining whether a defendant is able to stand competently during trial also determines what action is then made by courts; whether to plead guilty, waive a trial by jury, testify, or whether to except a plea bargain. However many psychological evaluations and tests need to be done before determining if a defendant has the ability of (CST). First off, a judge or an attorney has the right to deem if there is a CST issue at a pretrial as long as there is a bona fide doubt, reasonable doubt about defendant’s competency, which then leads to an evaluation by a mental health professional, clinical psychologist, or social worker who can evaluate a patient in an outpatient or inpatient setting. With multiple opportunities to observe the defendant’s abilities the observers can gather collateral sources of information. Quality of these reports has improved over time, and is unlikely for a judge to reject findings.
Chapter 9 was, for me, a horrific chapter in having to read. This chapter began with telling to story of the Amanda Yates case. Amanda drowned her five children and was put on trial in determining she was legal insane. Amanda had suffered from a server mental illness, but as able to stand competent in trial. She pleaded not guilty due to insanity. Yates told the prosecutors that by killing her children, she was saving them from Satan. Unbelievably, Yates received a second trial. There was belief that Amanda Yates had gotten the idea or killing her children from a similar episode from the TV show, Law & Order. But the expert who happened to find that comparison had a faulty memory, because the episode did not exist. However when the trial came to a rest the jury found Amanda Yates not guilty due to insanity. The plea of insanity is such a controversial topic that the uses of clinical psychologist are used to study and treat various forms of psychological dysfunctions and mental illnesses. Insanity is defined as “criminal’s state of mind at the time the crime was committed. “Insanity requires that due to a mental illness a defendant lacks moral responsibility and culpability for their crime. This is why psychologist has to look in the defendant’s past of mental history. However, even if people are suffering from a mental illness, does not mean that they qualify for insanity. But for the case of Amanda Yates, there were numerous amounts of evidence that proved she was psychotic. Yates suffered from postpartum mental illness that grew worse after each child’s birth. Moving on, the insanity defense is built on the purpose that people who commit crimes that are not fully aware of the responsibility of their actions are being treated fairly with in the legal system. This evolution of this defense has been around for centuries. In the early Roman Empire the law dictated that people found to be without mastery of mind, or “non compos mentis, should not be held to blame.
Overall, I thought that both of these chapters were filled with great information in determining whether a defendant has the competence to stand trial, and what qualifies a defendant as Insane. What I thought was interesting was how the early Roman Empire defined people who were insane. I wouldn’t think that there would be much sympathy back then for those who had committed a crime. Things that I did not know was how many observes, and professional team it takes to observe the behaviors and actions in order to determine whether a defendant is competent to stand trial. My views of insanity have not really changed. I was aware that there are cases in which people do committe crimes and are not aware of the difference of right and wrong and the responsibilty of their actions. Even in the case of Amanda Yates, I had a hard time excepting that she was insane for her crime, but then thought it must be insanity to kill your five children.
Psychological Terms: competence, competency to stand trial, insanity, psychological evaluations, bond fide doubt, collateral sources of information, psychological dysfunctions, postpartum mental illness.
Competence speaking in legal terms is referred to as a person’s ability to perform necessary personal or legal functions. Being competent has several different contexts in which we need to be aware of; competency to waive Miranda rights, competency to confess, competency to make treatment decisions, competency to execute a will or contract, and competency to take care of oneself or one’s finances. For the purposes of this chapter however, competency to stand trial is what we are concerned about.
When going to trial there is a lot at stake; defendant’s involved in criminal proceedings typically have a lot to lose if found guilty. This is why, before trial, a defendant needs to be found competent enough to understand what he/she is being charged with and what is happening in the courtroom. Through the case Dusky v. The United States, the Supreme Court created a legal doctrine of incompetence that stated a competent defendant must have the present ability to consult with his/her attorney, has to have a rational understanding of those consultations and must have a rational and factual understanding of the charges he/she has against them. In summation Competency to Stand Trial has two main components to it; the ability to interact rationally with an attorney as well as understand how the court processes work. The key to all of this though is that the defendant must me competent at the time of his/her trial. Previous mental states during which time the crime was committed isn’t taken into consideration when determining competency. This aspect of competency to stand trial is really interesting to me. Currently I work as a Private Investigator for an attorney whom was given a case a few years ago that involved me having to talk with a man who was in a serious car accident. This accident killed one man who was in the car along with him and him himself was impaired mentally, so badly so that we (the attorney I work for and I) didn’t think he would be competent enough to stand trial. Through several evaluations by psychologists in Iowa City, it was determined that he was unable to go to trial for committing vehicular manslaughter. To me, the facet of competency at the time of trial is interesting because referring back to a time before this man’s car accident he was intellectually sound and had no impairments what so ever. Competency to stand trial also stresses the defendant’s ability to perform the functions of rational interaction with an attorney and also understanding court proceedings. The key here is rational interaction; if a defendant is unwilling to talk to his attorney because of an irrational belief system competency comes into play. Eventually, the fundamentals of the case Dusky vs. The United States were adopted and called the Dusky Standard. The Dusky Standard became a federal standard for competence that served as a minimum requirement in all states. Although the Dusky standard is in place today, all defendants are presumed competent until proven otherwise. This is the presumption of Competency to stand trial. Also along with presumption, the preponderance of the evidence standard is used when determining Competency to Stand Trial. In this instance, the defense must prove that the defendant is more likely than not incompetent; the judge must be more than 50% positive the defendant is incompetent. There are treatments out there to restore competency in some cases involving antipsychotic medications. These medications can some reduce and even eliminate the severity and frequency of delusions that are experienced by mentally ill patients. To determine competency a number of forensic assessment instruments are used. These instruments are typically psychological tests and do not specifically answer legal questions. One test, the MMPI-2, is used to gather information about psychological distress, symptoms, and possible diagnosis. There is also the competency screening test which does answer some legal questions that other FAI’s do not address.
Unlike competence, insanity refers to the criminal’s state of mind at the time the crime was committed rather than at the time of trial. Insanity means that due to a mental illness of some sort, a defendant lacks moral responsibility and accountability for their crime and therefore should not be punished. Just like competency however, insanity is a legal term and not a psychological one. These definitions are made by judges and legislators and not psychologists and are the single most controversial intersections between the law and psychology. Some states when defining insanity used the words irresistible impulse in order to take into account the amount of volitional capacity a defendant holds. Under this new definition, a defendant could be acquitted if he or she could not reason with or resist the insane impulse to commit a crime.
The basis of insanity defense is built on the idea of if, when people commit a crime, they were fully aware of their actions and if not then they should not be fully responsible for those actions. A perspective on punishment that suggests that the punishment for a crime should be equal to the harm that was done is called the retribution perspective. This is more like the “eye for an eye” type of view. The deterrence view on punishment however suggests that if you commit a crime you should be punished for that crime so you learn that committing a crime leads to punishment. This can be done specifically or more generally depending on who you are trying to deter from committing crime.
Terms: Competency to stand trial, competency, Dusky vs. The United States, The Dusky standard, rational interaction, ability to understand, preponderance of the evidence, presumption of competence, treatment of psychotic episodes, MMPI-2, insanity, mental illness, irresistible impulse, volitional capacity, deterrence view on punishment, retribution perspective