Criminal competencies.

Abstract

Competence, in the context of criminal justice proceedings, refers to a defendant's capacity to meaningfully participate and make decisions during the criminal justice process. Competence is relevant at any stage of the process, from a defendant's first words to arresting officers, through that defendant's decision about pleas, until-in the gravest of cases-the moment of execution. Because questions about competence can be raised at any point in criminal justice proceedings, this chapter describes criminal competencies, and many scholars use broad terms such as adjudicative competence (see Bonnie, 1992) or competence to proceed, to cover the span from arrest to verdict to sentencing. Nevertheless, this chapter focuses primarily on the defendant's capacities that comprise his or her competence to stand trial because this is, by far, the most commonly adjudicated competence (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 2007), and far more scholarly research literature addresses this particular competence. Authorities estimate that at least 60,000 defendants-approximately 5% of all felony defendants-are evaluated for trial competence each year in the United States, making trial competence assessments the most common form of criminal forensic mental health assessment (Bonnie & Grisso, 2000;Poythress, Bonnie, Monahan, Otto, & Hoge, 2002). Most practicing clinical forensic psychologists evaluate trial competence on a routine basis. Indeed, evaluating, adjudicating, and restoring competence consumes most of the financial resources that jurisdictions devote to forensic mental health services (Golding, 1992).1 Although the Godinez decision has been understood as holding that the same competence standard applies to any actions that a defendant may take (i.e., waiving counsel and pleading guilty), a more recent case has modified this understanding. In Indiana v. Edwards (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court considered the unusual case of a mentally ill defendant who not only waived counsel but represented himself at trial (rather than simply pleading guilty, as in Godinez). The Court decided that the state could indeed limit this defendant's right to represent himself, even though he met the Dusky standard for trial competence, because self-representation in trial requires greater capacities. Thus, the recent Edwards decision suggests that the standard for competence may indeed vary in at least some circumstances.

One American Perspective on the Rights of Accused: An Initial Survey of Miranda Rights in a Broader Context

“…As an unintended consequence, hundreds of different advisements are currently used, across both general (i.e., all ages) versions (Rogers et al, ) and their juvenile (i.e., youth‐specific) counterparts (Rogers et al, ). Moreover, a relinquishment of Miranda rights can only be considered valid if it reflects a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent decision (Murrie & Zelle, ).…”

Competency to stand trial evaluations: A state‐wide review of court‐ordered reports

“…Much of the literature addressing competence to stand trial has described the frequency of incompetency opinions, which seems to vary widely across samples (Murrie & Zelle, ). Meta‐analysis suggests the average base rate of incompetency is 27.5%, although reported incompetency rates ranged from 7.0% to 70.0% across 59 studies and over four decades (Pirelli, Gottdiener, & Zapf, ).…”

“…Recall that almost all defendants who are found incompetent upon initial evaluation receive some form of competence restoration services. After some period of services, they are re‐evaluated and either opined competent, recommended for further restoration services, or opined unlikely to ever attain competence (Murrie & Zelle, ; Zapf & Roesch, ). However, available studies of CST evaluation do not distinguish between these stages; they either include only initial evaluations, or include both types, without distinguishing or comparing rates.…”

“…The largest meta‐analytic review suggests that opinions of incompetence are associated with unemployed, single, psychotic defendants with a history of psychiatric hospitalization (Pirelli et al, ). Not surprisingly, research consistently reveals that psychosis and cognitive impairments are the clinical conditions most often associated with an IST finding (Murrie & Zelle, ).…”

Competence to stand trial and criminalization: an overview of the research

“…All defendants are required to maintain a basic level of competence to proceed through the adjudication process; therefore, competency is relevant from arrest or initial detention through sentencing. 7 Adjudicative competence is the most commonly referred forensic evaluation, 8,9 with annual competency evaluation referrals increasing over time. 10,11 The U.S. standard for trial competence was established in Dusky v. United States 12 and all states currently use some variant of the Dusky standard, with the exact definition varying by jurisdiction.…”