Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
Research ArticleARTICLES

Competency to Stand Trial: A Conceptual Model for Its Proper Assessment

Sanford L. Drob, Robert H. Berger and Henry C. Weinstein
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online March 1987, 15 (1) 85-94;
Sanford L. Drob
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert H. Berger
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Henry C. Weinstein
MD, JD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The assessment of competency to stand trial is frequently fraught with conceptual confusion resulting from a failure to properly apply the data of the clinical examination to the relevant legal criteria. A basic question scheme that encompasses (1) the defendant's psychiatric status, (2) the effects of that status on his functioning, and (3) his apparent ability to participate in legal proceedings, is introduced to clarify the evaluation of fitness to stand trial. The way in which combinations of answers to three “basic questions” generate a scheme that clarifies the difficulties encountered in most competency evaluations is shown. Eight paradigm cases are generated. Five of these (competence, incompetence, mentally ill but competent, malingering, and impaired but competent) are frequently straightforward. However, the three possibilities in which a defendant meets criteria entailed by two of the three questions are inherently subject to controversy. These situations (circumscribed psychosis related to the charges, malingering in the context of mental illness, and functional deficits in the context of minor mental illness) are discussed in detail and illustrated with case material.

  • Copyright © 1986, The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 15 (1)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 15, Issue 1
1 Mar 1987
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Competency to Stand Trial: A Conceptual Model for Its Proper Assessment
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Competency to Stand Trial: A Conceptual Model for Its Proper Assessment
Sanford L. Drob, Robert H. Berger, Henry C. Weinstein
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Mar 1987, 15 (1) 85-94;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Competency to Stand Trial: A Conceptual Model for Its Proper Assessment
Sanford L. Drob, Robert H. Berger, Henry C. Weinstein
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Mar 1987, 15 (1) 85-94;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • A Comparison of Treatment of Paraphilias with Three Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors: A Retrospective Study
  • Tales of the Crypt for Psychiatrists: Mourning, Melancholia, and Mortuary Malpractice
  • A Clinical Study of Competency in Psychiatric Inpatients
Show more ARTICLES

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2025 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law