RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Mentally Ill and Non-Mentally Ill Defendants’ Abilities to Understand Information Relevant to Adjudication: A Preliminary Study
JF Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
JO J Am Acad Psychiatry Law
FD American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
SP 187
OP 197
VO 24
IS 2
A1 Hoge, Steven K.
A1 Poythress, Norman
A1 Bonnie, Richard
A1 Eisenberg, Marlene
A1 Monahan, John
A1 Feucht-Haviar, Thomas
A1 Oberlander, Lois
YR 1996
UL http://jaapl.org/content/24/2/187.abstract
AB The legal construct of competence to stand trial, or “adjudicative competence,” is based on the premise that some mentally disordered defendants have impaired abilities when compared with most defendants and that adjudication should be barred if these competence-related abilities are significantly impaired. Where the line is drawn between sufficient and insufficient abilities has important consequences: as a result of being adjudicated incompetent, defendants may be detained and treated involuntarily and their trials will be delayed. However, no studies have systematically compared the capacities of relevant groups of defendants. In this studv. 84 criminal defendants—42 of whom were hospitalized as incompetent and 42 of whom were regarded as unquestionably competent—were administered three instruments measuring capacity to understand legally relevant information. Incompetent defendants performed more poorly on all measures of understanding. Twenty-eight incompetent defendants were administered the measures a second time, after restoration to competence. Restored defendants improved their performance on all measures of understanding and their performance was similar to that of normal, competent defendants.