Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

ABPP Writens > Competencies, Sanity, Death Penalty > Flashcards

Competencies, Sanity, Death Penalty Flashcards

1
Q

Decisional competence

A

Defendants competence to make choices in the criminal process
(Pleas, jury v bench trial, raise certain defenses)

Assessment aimed at protecting the autonomy of the defendant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Amendment most heavily related to competency to proceed

A

Sixth amendment

Represented effectively, confront accusers, present evidence…

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Dusky Standard

A

Capacity to understand the criminal process (in general and specific case)

Ability to function in the court process, usually through counsel to assist in their defense

PRESENT ABILITY (capacity v willingness, reasonable degree of understanding)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Wilson v United States

A

Amnesia doesn’t equate to competence

Ability to consult, ability to testify, if evidence can be extrinsically reconstructed, strength of prosecution’s case

United States v Stubblefield - prosecution has an obligation to assist

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

When can competency concerns be raised

A

At any point during the criminal process

Drope v Missouri

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Prosecution-raised (or judge-raised) competency concern

A

The eval may happen without the defense counsels knowledge, or may happen before counsel is appointed

Skirts the protections afforded in Estelle v Smith

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Reasons defense may resist comp eval

A

Plea bargain may be preferable to lengthy hospital admission
Want them to look crazy at trial
Desire to do clients bidding (client does not think they are mentally ill)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Percentage of evaluator-judge agreement

A

90% (despite competency ultimately being a LEGAL decision and not a criminal one)

Zapf et al found this was because of the belief that MH experts are more qualified to answer the question of competency than a judge or legal professional

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Competency restoration until the 1970s

A

Defendants were sent to a state hospital or long term facility indefinitely…treatment was only a secondary objective

No trial or conviction of their crime

Then came Jackson v Indiana in 1972

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Competency restoration post-Jackson

A

Many states limited the amount of time a defendant could be confined (but some don’t)

May only commit someone for a “reasonable period of time”
But these time limits are arbitrary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Rate of competency restoration

A

75% are returned and found competent within six months (think mental illness and med issues)

Incompetent defendants have the right to refuse medication
Per Sell, someone can only be force medicated for competency if it is least intrusive, medically appropriate, and does not infringe on trial rights (eg right to testify)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Three situations for involuntary medication per Sell

A

Defendants who are dangerous and need meds to reduce danger to self or others

Any defendant that is incompetent to make treatment decisions can be involuntary medicated

Nondangerous defendants who can make tx decisions but have “serious” charges

(If someone doesn’t meet these situations, Sell suggests they be released)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Competency to be sentenced

A

More informal process

Fewer or no constitutional rights to waive for comp to be sentenced

Standard parallels Dusky…needs ability to offer mitigating information

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Features of incompetent defendants

A 
Psychotic disorder
Extensive MH/legal hx
Marginalized group
Below avg education
Higher rates of unemployment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Competency screening instruments

A

Competency Screening Test - 22 item sentence completion test
False positive because those with LD/low edu may bomb items

Georgia Court Competency Test - 17 questions in fixed order
Argued it, or the revised form with more items, fails to tap into decisional capacities or deep understanding

Computer-Assisted Determination of Competency to Proceed - 272 questions including social hx and psych fxning
Poor predictive validity, reliance on self report, takes so long to give
DONT USE IT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Semi-structured Interviews for Competency to Proceed

A

Competency Assessment Inventory - not standardized with Likert scoring on items, can’t interpret the ratings you give the responses

Fitness Interview Test-Revised - 16 items for adults or kids, provides structure for an examiners assessment of CST // fac, cwc, consequences

Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview - covers five aspects of comp based on Dusky, requires the presence of an attorney and to be administered with another MH professional // still considered experimental

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Second-Generation Adjudicative Competence Measures

A

MacCAT-CA - three domains (fac, rac, assist), vignette based, education as necessary, is NOT a test for competency (you should still do an evaluation above and beyond this)

ECST-R - content formed by a panel of legal and MH professionals, map directly onto Dusky, also includes atypical presentation scale for feigning detection
Good psychometric, allows for educating, standardized, feigning scale
Some issues with internal validity, rating format dilutes impairment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

CAST-MR

A

Competency measure for defendants with ID, 4th gr reading level

Multiple choice, which authors argue is better suited for an MR population, unlike the open-ended approach of other instruments

Recommended use alongside another structured instrument/inquiry

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Competency to proceed in juveniles

A

15yo and younger were less likely to appreciate risks and think about long term consequences

But most juveniles transferred to adult court were 16-17, and less immature

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Juvenile Adjudicative Competence Interview (JACI)

A

Questions about 12 areas of inquiry related to ability to understand legal progress and problem solve

No ratings, scores, or norms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Asking MSO-type questions in a comp eval

A

Cons: may be used later on if MSO is raised, can impeach a defendant who testifies in a trial, could lead to prosecutorial leads

Pros: can discuss real life and case-related information
Per AAPL, best to ask about it and place caveats if asked during testimony…definitely leave it out of your report

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

If you need to provide an opinion about restorability…

A

Address issues of probability of restoration under various treatment regimens

Whether such tx can be administered on an outpatient basis

Length of time that would constitute a “reasonable” treatment trial under the proposed regimens

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Some predictors of restorability (or not)

A

Less likely to restore: tx refractory, older, chronic

More likely to restore: axis 2, criminal histories, nonpsychotic disorders

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Restoration rates for those with ID

A

24-33%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Dusky v US

1960

A

Having a basic knowledge of your charges is NOT sufficient for competency to stand trial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Pate v Robinson

1966

A

Defendants are required to have a competency hearing

Constitutionally entitled to a comp hearing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Wilson v US

1968

A

Permanent retrograde amnesia does not automatically render a defendant incompetent to proceed

Sufficient extrinsic information on what happened, defendant can follow the proceedings, can discuss rationally w attorney, can testify on own behalf

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Jackson v Indiana

1972

A

A defendant cannot be committed indefinitely if found ITP and unrestorable

Violates eighth amendment due process if held longer than “a reasonable period of time,” without other (civil commitment) proceedings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Drope v Missouri

1975

A

A judge should interrupt criminal proceedings if a defendant appears to be incompetent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Medina v California

1992

A

Placed burden (incompetence) of proof on defense

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Riggins v Nevada

1992

A

You cannot be forced to take antipsychotic medication when standing trial

Must be medically appropriate, and least intrusive option

Found the fourteenth amendment considerations taken in Harper to apply here too, when someone is going to trial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Cooper v Oklahoma

1996

A

Preponderance of the evidence is a sufficient burden of proof form competency to proceed

Better to err on the side of sending someone to restoration than sending an incompetent defendant to trial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

US v Duhon

2000

A

Rote memorization is not enough to demonstrate competency

Emphasized the importance of rational understanding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Sell v United States

2003

A

Antipsychotic drugs can be forced on a defendant facing serious criminal charges to restore to CST

Important government interests are at stake, tx is medically appropriate, likely to render defendant competent, substantially unlikely to have SEs that interfere with ability to assist, no less intrusive methods exist

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Competency to consent to search and seizure

A

Fourth Amendment

Must involve “reasonable” police action…meaning the consent must be voluntary (so almost always focuses on coercion, with the persons knowledge of whether they have a right to refuse being secondary)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Competence to waive Miranda

A

Must be knowing, voluntary, intelligent

Miranda isn’t necessary if the person is not “in custody” (in their home, during traffic stops, some police station interviews provided they’re not the “functional equivalent of arrest”)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Topics of focus in competency to waive Miranda evaluations

A

Person-centered factors: IQ, suggestibility, oral and reading comprehension

Situational factors: intoxication, MH sxs, how the defendant was informed of their rights, bx of interrogator, setting and context of interrogation process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Competency to waive Miranda

“Knowing”

A

Ability to understand the rights in the manner they were delivered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Competency to waive Miranda

“Intelligent”

A

Capacity to use the information about their rights to make a rational and self-interested decision

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Predictors that are (not) associated with Miranda understanding

A

Previous court experience is not a predictor, and mental health history is also not a strong predictor of not understanding it

Juveniles under 15, those with ID, generally have difficulty with Miranda

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Measure of Miranda Comprehension

A

Grisso’s Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights (comprehension, follow up comprehension, vocabulary, vignettes - for juveniles)
Not the best measure, limited comparison groups, limited research

Rogers’ Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA)
Comprehension of the interrogation process, true/false about misconceptions, comprehension of relevant words, quiz about right to refuse
Similar to Grisso, lacks embedded response style assessment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Competency to waive Miranda

“Voluntary”

A

Suspects vulnerability to strong assertions of guilt, or insinuations that the interrogators are there to “help” the suspect

Consider age, deference to authority (Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale), strong desire to please others (ID/kids)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Requirements for competency to plead guilty

A

Similar to Miranda…knowing, intelligent, voluntary

SCOTUS: nature of the charge, penalties, rights waived by plea of guilt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Competency to waive counsel and represent oneself

“knowingly”

A

You’re aware of the advantages and disadvantages of self-representation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Conducting a competency to proceed prose eval…

A

Start with a standard CST eval

Then further inquiry into whether they understand advantages and disadvantages of self-representation, ability to attend and concentrate, reasoning, communication capacities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Competence to refuse insanity/mental state defense

A

Per Frendak, follow the defendants preferred defense provided they are competent to make it (includes refusal to introduce mitigating evidence)

May not want an insanity commitment, may believe tx would be better in a prison than in state hospital, avoid MH dx stigma, MH commitment may result in loss of legal rights…

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Competency to testify

A

Seen in civil and criminal cases
Can apply to ANYONE who may testify (not just the defendant, but also witnesses)

Ability to observe the event, remember the event, communicate the memory, tell the diff btwn truth and fiction, understand obligation to tell the truth in court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Competency to be executed and to participate in, and waive appeals

A

Does a mental disorder or disability significantly impair someone’s ability to understand the nature and purpose of the punishment, or appreciate the reason for its imposition

Came from SCOTUS in Panetti v Quarterman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Measures for competency to be executed

A

Elbert’s Competency to be Executed Rating Instrument
Interview Checklist for Evaluations of Competency for Execution (consistent with Panetti, goes into more depth than Elbert’s instrument)

Focus on (1) awareness of why they are being executed, (2) understanding the execution is occurring because of the convicted crime, (3) ability to assist counsel

50
Q

Constitutionality of medicating those to be competent to executed

A

Perry v Louisiana - found incompetent to be executed without meds…was initially forcibly medicated

SCOTUS remanded for reevaluation under Harper, and the case determined you can’t medicate solely for the purposes of execution

51
Q

Four general categories for sentencing

A

Retribution - receiving deserved punishment for actions committed (focused on culpability)

Deterrence - how much punishment is needed to keep others from committing similar acts (general), how much punishment is needed to keep the offender from engaging in further crime (specific)

Incapacitation - aims to prevent further crimes by the offender by focusing on what the offender would do if unpunished

Rehabilitation - oriented to reduce specific bx by the defendant

52
Q

Institutions that can influence sentencing

A

Legislature - statutory schemes

Prosecutors - selects the charge(s) and number of counts, through the plea bargaining process

Courts - judges imposing sentences (consecutive v concurrent, fines, restitution, etc.)

Parole boards - comprised of citizens and correctional officials, determines if parole is granted and under what (if any) conditions

53
Q

Mentally disordered sexual offender statutes

MDSO

A

Divert SOs with multiple offenses to special, indefinite treatment programs

Primary goals are to protect the public from dangerous sex offenders, and rehabilitate the MDSOs

Criminal MDSO laws typically happen post-conviction, civil laws happen after the charge but before the conviction

54
Q

Laws regarding MDSOs

A

Foucha v Louisiana - you can’t continue to confine someone absent a dangerous mental illness

Kansas v Hendricks - SVP commitment wasn’t cruel or unusual because it’s treatment and not punishment

Specht v Patterson - sex offenders facing indeterminate sentences are entitled to adversarial proceedings

Kansas v Crane - tried to define “dangerous beyond control” standard for commitment

55
Q

Case law in death penalty cases

A

Furman v Georgia - no more death penalty for rape

Atkins v Virginia - no more death penalty for ID

Roper v Simmons - no more death penalty for kiddos

Ake v Oklahoma - entitled to psychiatric assistance when dangerousness is of issue in a capital case, but not one of defendants choosing

56
Q

Factors that influence sentencing

A

Defendants who go to trial often receive harsher sentences

More variance in sentencing is attributed to individual judges than any other single factor

Other influences: degree of harm to the victim, prior convictions, race and gender

57
Q

Considerations for reports/evaluations of treatment needs

A

Psychiatric treatment is not necessarily the best response to all crimes

Be familiar with community treatment resources and be specific about their utility in each case

Ethical conflicts if you also provide some of the treatment being recommended

Offenders can miscalculate their willingness and capacity to engage in treatment

58
Q

How psychologists can contribute in assessments of culpability

A

Inform court of situational factors that contributed to the commission of the defense

Educate the court on the offender’s life in general

Explanations of cultural factors in how the offender experienced the situation that lead to the charge

Evaluating culpability (intrinsic/extrinsic factors that undermined self-control related to culpability of the offense

59
Q

Problems with assessing violence risk

A

No professional consensus on how best to measure this

Dangerousness is not solely a trait

Recency and salience of the offense may disproportionately impact clinical judgements

Potential for bias, and illusory correlations

60
Q

Sensitivity v specificity

A

Sensitivity - true positive rate

Specificity - true negative rate

61
Q

Problem with relying solely on base rates for assessments of violence risk

A

Neglect to consider graded levels of confidence about future violence

Seen as a 2x2 table of violent v nonviolent, and predictions v outcomes

62
Q

Receiver operating characteristic analyses for violence risk

A

Graphs the trade offs between sensitivity and specificity

Utilizes AUC analyses, higher AUCs mean more accuracy in classification

63
Q

Five approaches to assessing violence risk

A

Unstructured clinical assessment - most often used, worst kind, most flexible approach, courts don’t necessarily demand anything different

Anamnestic assessment - evaluator attempts to identify risk factors based on an examinee’s detailed history (not far from unstructured)

SPJ - gathers relevant data, structured methods to direct your attention

Actuarial assessment - comparisons between violent and nonviolent samples and determining the factors that best discriminate them

Adjusted actuarial - actuarial procedures but then you’re fucking with the estimates (why even use an actuarial in the first place then?)

64
Q

General recidivism risk assessment tools

A

LSIR

YLS/CMI

65
Q

SPJ risk assessment tools

A

HCR-20

Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)

66
Q

Actuarial risk assessment measures

A

Violence Risk Appraisal Guide

Classification of Violence Risk (COVR)

67
Q

Sexual reoffending risk assessment tools

A

Static-99-R

Sexual Violence Risk 20 (SVR-20)

68
Q

Single best personality predictor of future dangerousness

A

Psychopathy

Although ASPD as delineated in the PCL is not as useful as a predictor

69
Q

Types of risk factors for future dangerousness

A

Dispositional - sex, age, personality

Personal - arrest hx, age of onset

Contextual - weapon and victim availability

Clinical - substance use disorder, major mental illness

70
Q

Strongest historical factors for dangerousness

A

Adult criminal record

Delinquency history

71
Q

Whalem v US

1965

A

Competency hearings are not required if both parties stipulate to the finding of the evaluation

A court can impose an insanity defense onto a defendant against their desires (overturned by Marble in 1991)

72
Q

Miranda v Arizona

1966

A

Police ARE required to inform a suspect of their rights to remain silent and have an attorney present

73
Q

Faretta v California

1975

A

A state may not force a lawyer upon a defendant when the defendant wishes to conduct their own defense

Right to self-representation - decision must be made knowingly and intelligently

74
Q

Crane v Kentucky

1986

A

The constitution permits evidence on the conditions under which a confession is obtained

75
Q

Godinez v Moran

1993

A

The standard to waive constitutional rights is NOT higher than CST

76
Q

Indiana v Edwards

A

A state can deny someone the right to self-representation even if they were found CST

Even if competent under Dusky, Godinez only allows you to waive your right to counsel, NOT to self-representation (so prose is not guaranteed)

77
Q

JDB v North Carolina

2011

A

Courts should consider the age of a juvenile suspect when determining if a juvenile could have consented/waived Miranda

Age informs the “Miranda custody analysis”

78
Q

Two elements of a crime

A

Actus reus - the prohibited act itself

Mens rea - the mental state with which the defendant must have acted (purpose, knowledge)

Even if both elements are met, a defendant can avoid criminal responsibility by raising an affirmative defense (such as NGRI)

79
Q

Two main types of affirmative defenses

A

Justification - wrongful conduct was objectively permissible under certain circumstances (self-defense)

Excuse - conduct was objectively wrong but the defendant was not a responsible moral agent and is therefore not blameworthy (insanity)

80
Q

Four levels of mens rea

A

Purpose - crime is a result of the agents conscious object

Knowledge - defendant is aware of some prohibited circumstance, or is practically certain that some prohibited result will occur as a result of their action

Recklessness - defendant is consciously aware of a great and unjustifiable risk of a social harm that they have created

Negligence - defendant is not aware of the substantial risk but should have been reasonably aware of it

81
Q

Intoxication and partial defenses

A

Voluntary and involuntary have a place in case law in many states to negate mens rea

Although Montana v Egelhoff was upheld by SCOTUS, which prevented intoxication from being used to negate mens rea (so many states allow it to speak to mens rea, but it’s not a guaranteed

82
Q

Examples of partial excuse defenses

A

Provocation/passion

EED

“Imperfect self defense” - some states will allow reduction in mens rea for homicide if the defendant believed they were in danger (but a reasonable person may not have)

83
Q

Stats for NGRI defenses

A

Less than 1% of jury trials have NGRI defenses, and of that 1%, only 25% of NGRI defenses are successful

84
Q

Insanity Defense Reform Act

1984

A

Federal system

Came post-Hinckley

Insanity is affirmative, must prove by clear and convincing, if at the time of the act they could not appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of their acts, due to a mental disease or defect

Excludes partial affirmative defenses, MH experts can’t comment on ultimate issue

85
Q

GBMI defense

A

Was an option in some states pre- and post-Hinckley

Guilty but had a mental illness at the time of the act

Does not impact blameworthiness so they are still tried and sentenced in the same way their non-GBMI counterparts are

86
Q

Case law on committing insanity acquittees

A

Jones v United States - indefinite commitment is constitutional

Foucha v Louisiana - personality disorder is not a MD or D, once the psychosis has lifted that makes the person dangerous, you cannot continue to confine them

87
Q

Assessment measure for insanity

A

RCRAS (Rogers criminal responsibility….)

Considered “acceptable” - psychometric properties are okay…
Best to use as a means to structure an MSO a eval, don’t rely on this itself

Contains many questions that tap into various insanity prongs (ALI, Durham, malingering, GBMI, etc.)

88
Q

Sanity mental disease or defeat requirement

A

All states require this, and many also frown upon temporary insanity (such as dissociative states)

Most successful are psychosis and ID

Focus on the symptoms and impairment, rather than the exact label

89
Q

M’Naghten and ALI

A

Both contain cognitive elements (M’Naghten more so)
MN - did not know nature/quality/act was wrong
ALI - lacked capacity to appreciate wrongfulness

MN is more restrictive, but judges apply it liberally making it essentially equal to ALI

Bigger difference is in ALI’s focus on wrongfulness (moral v legal wrong), many states lean into legal wrongfulness and only some honor deific decree

90
Q

Insanity’s volitional impairment prong

A

“Irresistible impulse” test or “Policeman at the elbow”

Second prong to ALI (with cognitive component being the first)

Typically, any evidence of planning impacts this prong or test, many states don’t like the volitional piece because how do you truly know of something is irresistible?

91
Q

Automatism Defense

A

Someone committing a criminal act involuntarily, such as while sleeping, when hypoxia, etc.

Largely doesn’t work in most states if you’ve had experienced such a state previously and did not take responsible steps to prevent the criminal occurrence

92
Q

Diminished capacity v diminished responsibility

A

DC - defendant did not act purposefully or knowingly

DR - has a mental disorder that caused a volitional or cognitive impairment but does not produce insanity to the ability to form mens rea

93
Q

Testimony in actus reus

A

Testimony stating the defendant literally could not have done the acts in question (because it was not in their personality, etc.)

Courts have generally thrown this out, because the science behind it sucks, and it can typically only come up if the defense brings mental health testimony up first

94
Q

Standard based on self-defense, provocation, duress, and entrapment defenses

A

Reasonable person standard

How would a reasonable person/spouse/etc. have reacted in this situation

95
Q

DID and insanity defenses

A

Little research, dx poorly understood

Many offenders report dissociation during violent acts, and thus may be a normal response to a traumatic event rather than dissociation

DID in adults can be properly diagnosed, is chronic, and is most likely seen as a reaction to an acute situational stressor

96
Q

PTSD and insanity defenses

A

Many measures for PTSD can be easily spoiled by disingenuous reporting

Comorbidity with substance abuse

Likely to be a snap bx and not something planned, choice of victim must be accidental, acts must relate to the trauma in some way, benign incidents result in violence, can’t explain their bx, typically otherwise has no real criminal record

97
Q

Insanity stats (reports)

A

Defendant found insane approx 13% of the time

Varies widely on rate of agreement, based on access to consultation, setting, PhD v MD…

81-95% concordance between clinical opinion and legal outcome

98
Q

Ways in which mental illness can relate to the alleged events

A

Causal role - offending bx was caused by the sxs

Coincidental role - sxs were present at the time but did not directly contribute to the bx

Postevent role - sxs developed after, or may have been caused by, the criminal act

99
Q

Rex v Arnold

1724

A

First insanity case

To be insane “a man must be totally deprived of his understanding and memory so as to not know what he is doing, no more than an infant, brute, or WILD BEAST.”

(Taps into right v wrong understanding that we see more commonly today)

100
Q

M’Naghten’s Case

1843

A

Laboring under such a defect of reason from disease or mind

Not know nature and quality of the act, or know right from wrong

Critics say it’s too rigid, and a literal interpretation would not exculpatory anyone…you should consider ability to control actions

101
Q

Pre-Durham insanity statue

A

To help out the M’N standard came the irresistible impulse test

By reason of MD or D, could not choose right from wrong and agency was destroyed - must have been sole product of MI

Legal community believed impulsivity was easily feigned and was worried this would lead to too many acquittals

102
Q

Durham v United States

1954

A

PRODUCT TEST

Unlawful act must be the product of a mental illness

Criticism was it was too vague

St. E’s moved to include personality disorders and everyone lost their shit in 1957

103
Q

United States v Brawner

1972

A

ALI standard is included

Person is not responsible if they have an MD/D that causes them to lack capacity to appreciate criminality (wrongfulness) or conform conduct to requirements of the law

104
Q

McDonald v US

1962

A

Defined mental disease or defect

“Substantially impacts or impairs”

105
Q

Frendak v US

1979

A

A defendant can refuse an insanity defense, even if data shows likelihood of insanity at the time of the act

106
Q

Jones v US

1983

A

NGRI acquittees CAN be subject to involuntary and indefinite commitment

107
Q

Foucha v Louisiana

1992

A

A defendant must be both dangerous and mentally ill for a state to justify continued commitment of an NGRI acquittee

108
Q

Clark v Arizona

2006

A

All interpretations of insanity are sufficient

You do not have the right to present MH evidence outside of an insanity defense to counter criminal intent

109
Q

Furman v Georgia

1972

A

Death penalty for rape (where death did not occur or was even attempted) constituted cruel and unusual punishment

110
Q

Gregg v Georgia

1976

A

Imposition of the death penalty in capital cases does not violate the 8th (cruel and usual) and 14th (due process) amendments

111
Q

Lockett v Ohio

1978

A

It is a violation of 8th and 14th amendments to limit consideration of mitigating factors in a death penalty case

Upheld by Eddings

112
Q

Estelle v Smith

1981

A

Information gathered as part of a pre-trial evaluation cannot be used during sentencing

113
Q

Ford v Wainwright

1986

A

You cannot execute the insane - violation of 8th and 14th

Panetti v Quarterman - competency for execution must include a rational understanding of the states justification for executing the inmate

114
Q

State v Perry

1992

A

You cannot force medicate someone for the purposes of competency to execution

115
Q

Atkins v Virginia

2002

A

Execution of mentally retarded persons is considered cruel and unusual punishment

116
Q

Roper v Simmons

2005

A

The execution of minors violates cruel and unusual punishment protection of the 8th amendment

117
Q

Role of aggravating and mitigating factors in capital cases

A

Certain aggravating factors must be in play to consider the death penalty…prosecution must prove the presence of these factors to make their case for why the DP should be considered

The defense must then convince the prosecution that DP is not appropriate through the use of statutory mitigating factors

Nonstatutory factors are also permitted (info on defendants background and circumstances of the offense)

118
Q

Barefoot v Estelle

1983

A

Permits psychiatric testimony in capital sentencing cases (dangerousness), despite clinical predictions lacking in specificity

119
Q

Two major prongs in capital evaluations

A

What factors are present that may be relevant to mitigation and aggravation?

What is the likelihood that the defendant will commit acts of serious violence in the future?

120
Q

The reliability of violence risk assessment for capital cases is best when…

A

The risk estimate relies on past patterns of conduct displayed by individuals in similar contexts

The risk assessment is anchored to the base rate of violence for the group to which the individual most closely corresponds, and then is conservatively individualized

The final risk estimate is adjusted for risk management or violence prevention/reduction procedures that could be applied

121
Q

Heilbrun’s three prongs for competency to be executed

A

Understanding the nature of capital punishment and the reason for its existence

Ability to assist counsel in ongoing appeals

Prepare for death psychologically/spiritually

122
Q

Heilbrun’s proposed essential components to competency to be executed evaluations

A

Disclosure of purpose
Multiple evaluation contacts w inmate
Specific inquiry regarding the pending execution
Comprehensive assessment for psychopathology, cog fxning, personality, and sx exaggeration and minimization
Third party interviews to obtain historical and descriptive information
Assessment context that provides appropriate interview and testing conditions

ABPP Writens (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions