discussion

 

opic: Competency to Stand Trial

Competency to stand trial is unrelated to the defendant’s metal state at the time of the crime (Bartol & Bartol, 2022). In other words, the issue of competency relates directly to the defendant’s state of mind during criminal proceedings, not during the alleged crime. If an illness prevents an individual from understanding the criminal proceedings, procedures, laws, and their rights, then they are incompetent, and the trial will come to a halt. However, this does not mean that the defendant is not being tried, it simply means that the defendant must receive enough mental treatment to understand what is going on. Once competent, the insanity defense may come into play as well. These evaluations are conducted by psychologists, and it is important that each analysis is carefully conducted. There are many cases in which an individual who is not competent is sent to trial anyways which makes for an unfair trial and depletes the individual from receiving the rehabilitation that is needed.

Summary of Article:

The review by Miller (2013) analyzes psychological evaluations in the criminal justice system, focusing on assessments for competency to stand trial, insanity defense, and future violence risk. The article analyses each of the defenses/competency stances including the history of each and how they are determined. The review of competency is extremely detailed and gave great information and expanded my knowledge on criteria and tests for measuring competency. In order for a defendant to be competent to stand trial, they must: 1) have some understanding of what they are being charged with, 2) understand the range/degree of punishment, 3) understand the roles of the key players in the legal process, 4) be able to clearly and consistently articulate and communicate to their attorney their version of events in a coherent and understandable way, 5) have the capacity to act appropriately in the courtroom, and 6) have the capacity to testify relevantly (Miller, 2013). This article is a great read to understand the role of forensic psychologists in the court room since it speaks on the roles from pre-trial to testifying in court.

Role of a Forensic Psychologist

Miller (2013) provides the foundational components of forensic psychological evaluations. She states that while procedures and measures will depend on the specific question, the foundation is very similar across the board. These procedures and measures include reviews of records, clinical interviews, psychological tests, collateral data, and a written report (Miller, 2013). This means that as professionals (in a legal setting) we will be providing examinations for legal purposes (i.e., to answer the legal question) and not necessarily for treatment. Psychologists review case records of any relevant background for the examination, which questions are asked, and which measures are needed (Miller, 2013). Clinical interviews play a vital part of the evaluation and can range from a short duration to several days. These interviews usually include the defendant’s recollection of events leading up to the crime and the day of the crime itself including his background history. These interviews can also include key witnesses and family members to gain more information on the defendant and their behavior during the time. Psychological test can include standardized tests or can be extensive tests such as brain scans or personality tests (Miller, 2013). Once all data is collected, the psychologist needs to put it all into a written report. It is important that psychologists conduct a careful analysis of each individual case and not make decisions based on the absence, presence, or severity of a mental disorder. It is up to us to ensure that justice is served and that involves allowing incompetent individuals treatment for a fair trial.

Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2022). Introduction to forensic psychology: Research and application (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Miller, L. (2013). Psychological evaluations in the criminal justice system: Basic principles and best practices. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.10.005Links to an external site.