Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Law Hum Behav. 2003 Apr;27(2):127-39.

Competency restoration: an examination of the differences between defendants predicted restorable and not restorable to competency.

Author information

1
Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, Alabama, USA.

Abstract

According to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jackson v. Indiana (1972), examiners must determine if a defendant has "substantial" probability of regaining competency through treatment "in the foreseeable future." Previous research has indicated that, given the low base rate of defendants unable to be restored to competency, examiners are relatively poor at predicting which defendants will regain competency. Determining the characteristics of not restorable incompetent defendants and restorable incompetent defendants is a necessary first step toward improving examiners' ability to predict a defendant's likelihood of regaining competency. This study examined the competency evaluation reports of 468 defendants evaluated for competency to stand trial. Incompetent defendants significantly differed from competent defendants with regard to age, employment status, ethnicity, criminal charges, and psychiatric diagnosis. Few significant differences existed between defendants predicted restorable and those predicted not restorable by mental health examiners--the differences that did exist were related mainly to nonpsychiatric variables.

PMID:
12733417
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Loading ...
    Support Center