2014
DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2014.910857
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fitness to Stand Trial in New Zealand: Different Factors Associated with Fitness to Stand Trial Between Mentally Disordered and Intellectually Disabled Defendants in the New Zealand Criminal Justice System

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
7
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
2
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Consistent with prior research (Sakdalan & Egan ), socio‐demographic determinants did not predict court outcome in the current study. It is encouraging that the static demographic factors such as Indigenous status did not predict determinations by the MHC over and above the clinical and legal factors assessed in the current study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Consistent with prior research (Sakdalan & Egan ), socio‐demographic determinants did not predict court outcome in the current study. It is encouraging that the static demographic factors such as Indigenous status did not predict determinations by the MHC over and above the clinical and legal factors assessed in the current study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…). Whereas the severity of cognitive impairment is likely critical in determining competence to stand trial (Sakdalan & Egan ), such capacity is not static, and ‘fitness’ will vary according to their environment, access to appropriate clinical and social support, and the complexity of the legal decision‐making required by the court case (Birgden & Thomson ). Where local legislation does not prescribe tests of fitness, most Australian jurisdictions rely on R.v.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In terms of the predictive power of mental health symptoms and demographic variables, an intellectual disability diagnosis predicted both IST and non‐restoration. This finding is consistent with previous research (Advokat et al ., ; Colwell & Gianesini, ; Cooper & Zapf, ; Gay et al ., ; Hubbard et al ., ; Morris & DeYoung, ; Morris & Parker, ; Mossman, ; Pirelli et al ., ; Sakdalan & Egan, ). Although associated with IST and non‐restoration, the number of neuropsychological symptoms was not predictive of competency outcomes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As such, disorders negatively influencing a person's cognitive abilities, such as psychotic disorders or intellectual disabilities, tend to interfere with their ability to proceed to trial. Congruent with this assumption, research suggests psychotic disorder and/or intellectual disability diagnoses are consistently related to both IST (Cooper & Zapf, 2003;Gay, Ragatz, & Vitacco, 2015;Hubbard, Zapf, & Ronan, 2003;Pirelli, Gottdiener, & Zapf, 2011;Sakdalan & Egan, 2014) and a decreased likelihood of competency restoration (Advokat et al, 2012;Colwell & Gianesini, 2011;Morris & DeYoung, 2012;Morris & Parker, 2008;Mossman, 2007). To that end, a meta-analysis by Pirelli et al (2011), which relied on 68 studies conducted between 1967 and 2008, discovered defendants diagnosed with a psychotic disorder were over eight times more likely opined incompetent to stand trial.…”
Section: Factors Associated With Competency Restorationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the United States, for instance, some analysts estimated that about 60,000 competency evaluations are requested annually (Bonnie, & Grisso, 2000), with an estimated $US300 million annual expenditure (Zapf et al, 2014). Notwithstanding the steady increase in referrals for competency evaluations (Sakdalan & Egan, 2014), it was estimated as long ago as 1999 that approximately 20% of referred defendants are found incompetent to stand trial (Roesch, Zapf, Golding, & Skeem, 1999). A more recent meta-analytic review reports an incompetency base rate of about 27.5% of those referred for assessment (Pirelli, Gottdiener, & Zapf, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%