Examining How Competency to Stand Trial Policies Differ by U.S. State.
Location
D.P. Culp Center Room 311
Start Date
4-5-2024 1:30 PM
End Date
4-5-2024 2:30 PM
Name of Project's Faculty Sponsor
Jill Stinson
Faculty Sponsor's Department
Psychology
Competition Type
Competitive
Type
Oral Presentation
Presentation Category
Social Sciences
Abstract or Artist's Statement
Competency to stand trial requires that the defendant understands the nature of their legal situation and can assist in their own defense (Dusky v. US, 1960). Formal psychological evaluation of competency is one of the most common within the United States criminal legal system. Competency concerns can be raised throughout all stages of the trial process by any legal actor, and once noted, an evaluation of the defendant’s competency is conducted. If the defendant is found not competent, competency restoration can take place to educate the defendant on the legal process and about their specific case. Though competency-to-stand-trial evaluation is common, policies and procedures for assessing competency vary across state and Federal jurisdictions (Fader-Towe & Pinals, 2021). For example, some defendants may be involuntarily committed to a secure facility during the competency evaluation and restoration process, while others remain in the community until a determination is made. Also, the length of time an individual is involuntarily committed while awaiting competency evaluation or restoration can vary; several states do not have established time limits for confinement, despite recommendation from the U.S. Supreme Court that the nature and duration of commitment must be within reason (Jackson v. Indiana, 1972). An additional variation involves the recommendation or use of medications to assist with competency restoration, and whether or not that can occur against a defendant’s will. In this presentation, I will provide a detailed overview of U.S. Federal and state-by-state policies and procedures related to competency to stand trial, based upon a systematic search of relevant state and Federal policies from Nexis Uni and state-based legal resources. Clinical and legal implications and the need for additional research will be discussed.
Examining How Competency to Stand Trial Policies Differ by U.S. State.
D.P. Culp Center Room 311
Competency to stand trial requires that the defendant understands the nature of their legal situation and can assist in their own defense (Dusky v. US, 1960). Formal psychological evaluation of competency is one of the most common within the United States criminal legal system. Competency concerns can be raised throughout all stages of the trial process by any legal actor, and once noted, an evaluation of the defendant’s competency is conducted. If the defendant is found not competent, competency restoration can take place to educate the defendant on the legal process and about their specific case. Though competency-to-stand-trial evaluation is common, policies and procedures for assessing competency vary across state and Federal jurisdictions (Fader-Towe & Pinals, 2021). For example, some defendants may be involuntarily committed to a secure facility during the competency evaluation and restoration process, while others remain in the community until a determination is made. Also, the length of time an individual is involuntarily committed while awaiting competency evaluation or restoration can vary; several states do not have established time limits for confinement, despite recommendation from the U.S. Supreme Court that the nature and duration of commitment must be within reason (Jackson v. Indiana, 1972). An additional variation involves the recommendation or use of medications to assist with competency restoration, and whether or not that can occur against a defendant’s will. In this presentation, I will provide a detailed overview of U.S. Federal and state-by-state policies and procedures related to competency to stand trial, based upon a systematic search of relevant state and Federal policies from Nexis Uni and state-based legal resources. Clinical and legal implications and the need for additional research will be discussed.