Competency to stand trial in family court: characteristics of competent and incompetent juveniles.
نویسندگان
چکیده
Competency to stand trial (CST) has been among the most thoroughly researched psycholegal issues in the past 20 years. However, little attention has been given to CST in juveniles facing delinquency or criminal proceedings. In a sample of 112 pretrial juvenile defendants undergoing court-ordered CST evaluations, 14 percent of the sample was judged incompetent to stand trial (IST). Sixty-one (55%) were considered to have one or more examiner-cited competency deficits that might lead the court to a finding of IST. Only age, intelligence level, and history of previous juvenile arrest differentiated competent from incompetent juveniles. Implications of the results for raising the CST issue in family or circuit courts are discussed as are suggestions for future research.
منابع مشابه
Eliminating the Competency Presumption in Juvenile Delinquency Cases.
The legal presumption used in virtually all juvenile delinquency cases in the U.S. is that all juveniles are competent to stand trial. This Article calls for the elimination of that legal presumption, which is historically based on the Dusky v. United States decision and in the adult criminal justice system. The recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court recognize the developmental and organic ...
متن کاملCompetency to stand trial in preadjudicated and petitioned juvenile defendants.
As state legislatures across the United States continue to permit younger juvenile defendants to be tried in adult court, juvenile competence to stand trial has become an issue of increasing legal and forensic significance. This study examined competency to stand trial in a sample of preadjudicated and petitioned juvenile defendants. Results revealed that juveniles deemed unfit to stand trial w...
متن کاملAssessing competency competently: toward a rational standard for competency-to-stand-trial assessments.
This article reports on a survey of forensic psychiatrists and psychologists who read two case study vignettes and assessed whether each criminal defendant was competent to stand trial, using three differently worded standards of competency: one that focused on whether the defendant's thinking was rational, a second that focused on whether the defendant's behavior was rational, and a third that...
متن کاملInvoluntary medication of patients who are incompetent to stand trial: a descriptive study of the New York experience with judicial review.
The United States Supreme Court, in the recent case of Riggins v. Nevada, extended its examination of the issue of involuntary treatment with antipsychotic medication to the mentally disabled facing criminal trial. A criminal defendant who is "incompetent to stand trial" cannot be subjected to trial. Many such persons are committed to hospitals to be treated and rendered "competent to stand tri...
متن کاملThe Sell effect: involuntary medication treatment is a "clear and convincing" success.
The Supreme Court ruling Sell v. United States in 2003 (539 U.S. 166) set a new precedent by mandating federal judges function as decision makers on the issue of whether "nondangerous" incompetent defendants charged with federal crimes can be involuntarily medicated to restore their competency to stand trial. To provide data to inform future opinions by mental health professionals and decisions...
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 27 1 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 1999