This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Arrigo, B. A. Articles by Bardwell, M. C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Law, Psychology, and Competency to Stand Trial: Problems with and Implications for High-Profile Cases

California School of Professional Psychology-Fresno

Mark C. Bardwell

California School of Professional Psychology-Fresno

Competency to stand trial (CST) determinations require an adherence to legal adjudication standards and psychological assessments methods. However, the forensic decision making on these matters is fraught with complex and enduring dilemmas. Questions persist about the vague and ambiguous nature of the precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court case law on mental illness and competency as applied to particular defendants. In addition, the clinical evaluation procedures pose sufficient validity and reliability problems that the assessment instruments themselves have been the source of considerable consternation. As a result, the medicolegal system, on occasion, has allowed controversial and profoundly disturbed mental health defendants to pro se their cases (e.g., Colin Ferguson) and/or has rendered questionable psychological screenings for high-profile CST cases (e.g., Theodore Kaczynski). In this article, the authors revisit the legal and psychological pitfalls attributable to the CST determination. They examine where and how the legal standard and the clinical evaluation procedures manufacture problematic results, particularly in well-publicized cases. They conclude by exploring the policy implications of their analysis for purposes of future criminal justice reform in this forensic mental health area.

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, 16-43 (2000)


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. A. Arrigo Justice and the deconstruction of psychological jurisprudence: The case of competency to stand trial Theoretical Criminology, February 1, 2003; 7(1): 55 - 88. [Abstract] [PDF]