AAPL Practice Guideline for the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial.
نویسندگان
چکیده
Competence to stand trial is a legal construct used to identify those criminal defendants who have the requisite mental capacity to understand the nature and objective of the proceedings against them and to participate rationally in preparing their defense. This Practice Guideline has described how psychiatrists should evaluate individuals concerning their competence to stand trial. The Guideline describes acceptable forensic psychiatric practice for such evaluations. Where possible, it specifies standards of practice and principles of ethics and also emphasizes the importance of analyzing an individual defendant's case in the context of statutes and case law applicable in the jurisdiction where the evaluation takes place. The recommendations in the Guideline both reflect and are limited by evolving case law, statutory requirements, legal publications, and the current state of psychiatric knowledge. The authors have taken note of nationally applicable case law, federal constitutional standards, statutory language, and federal and state interpretations of the rights or statutes, recognizing that jurisdictions may differ in their specific interpretation or application of statutes or general constitutional standards. The review of cases concerning specific psychiatric diagnoses illustrates general U.S. trends, and psychiatrists must remain cognizant of their jurisdictions' interpretations of statutes or constitutional requirements. By surveying a variety of practices and approaches to data gathering and case analysis, the authors believe that this Guideline will stimulate additional collegial discussion about what is necessary and sufficient for adequate evaluations of adjudicative competence. The notion that psychiatrists should apply expertise to competence assessments stems from the principal that, before allowing a defendant to face criminal prosecution and possible punishment, courts need reasonable assurance--based, if necessary, on a careful, individualized evaluation--that the defendant has adequate mental capacity to make a defense. At a minimum, a psychiatrist's opinion about adjudicative competence should reflect an understanding of the jurisdictional standard and of how the defendant's mental condition affects competence as defined with the jurisdiction. The psychiatrist's report should clearly describe the opinion and the reasoning that leads to it. Psychiatrists who provide mental health expertise concerning adjudicative competence give trial courts information needed to assure that defendants can appropriately protect themselves and that criminal proceedings will be accurate, dignified,and just.
منابع مشابه
AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial: an American legal perspective.
The AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial provides a rich discussion of the legal standards and procedures for evaluating and determining a criminal defendant's trial competence and for restoring to competence defendants found to be incompetent. The document includes an up-to-date discussion of the applicable case law, examines ethics consi...
متن کاملAAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial: an English legal perspective.
This brief commentary compares the law relating unfitness to plead in England and Wales with that of competency to stand trial, as reflected in the AAPL Practice Guideline. In so doing, it presents the argument that English law, with its adherence to a test of unfitness that goes back to the first half of the 19th century, may no longer be fit for the purpose. Unlike the test for incompetency t...
متن کاملAAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial: a Canadian legal perspective.
Canadian legal tests of fitness to stand trial, while similar to tests in the United States, place less emphasis on rational understanding of the complexities of the trial process and greater emphasis on communicating with legal counsel. The limited cognitive capacity test has gained wide acceptance in Canadian jurisprudence as a balance between ensuring that an accused person can provide the n...
متن کاملEvaluating competency to stand trial with evidence-based practice.
Evaluations for competency to stand trial are distinguished from other areas of forensic consultation by their long history of standardized assessment beginning in the 1970s. As part of a special issue of the Journal on evidence-based forensic practice, this article examines three published competency measures: the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA), the Eval...
متن کاملInsanity Defense Evaluations
The insanity defense has been described as a symbol of the relationship between law and psychiatry (Stone, 1984b). As such, it has always been the subject of intense legal and public scrutiny, despite the fact that it is infrequently raised and seldom successful. Forensic psychiatrists are often depended upon by the criminal justice system to provide these evaluations, which require a high degr...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
دوره 36 1 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2007