Go on. Explore!

lvl 0 • 0 xp

lvl 1

Home Market Decks Interests

competency

memorize.ai (lvl 286)

(0)

19 cards

()

Section 1

Preview this deck

Grissio 1986

Front

1 / 19

Competition Prep

0.0

0 reviews

5			0
4			0
3			0
2			0
1			0

Active users

All-time users

Favorites

Last updated

6 years ago

Date created

Mar 1, 2020

Cards (19)

Section 1

(19 cards)

Grissio 1986

Front

competency was contextual: to waive rights to silence and counsel "knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily" prior to questioning by law enforcement officers to please guilty to dismiss counsel or conduct one's own defense without benefit of counsel to stand trial to possess the requisite cognition, affect and volition for criminal responsibility to serve a sentence to be executed

Back

competency and insanity

Front

address defendant's mental capacities at diff points in time competency to stand trial insanity: not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGI)

Back

competency restoration

Front

until 972 defendants could be committed indefinitely (jackson v indiana) today incompetent defendants are largest group of patients committed to mental hospital through legals system -purpose of restoring to competency -medication -- psychoactive drugs -forced medication -- sell v US

Back

competency to refuse medication or treatment

Front

defendant is incompetent if after advantages & disadvantages explained, one of following is true: incapable of expressing understanding of the advantages, disadvantages & alternatives or substantially incapable of applying advantages, disadvantages in order to make informed choice

Back

inpatient competency education

Front

groups present info in a variety of ways -lecture -discussion -worksheets -videos -educational games can be fairly effective

Back

competency evaulation

Front

preliminary points: -competency question is essentially a legal concern, not a diagnostic one -no condition, per se, is a barrier to competency - issue is aptitude not achievement -historical functioning et al is interesting, but competency is about present capacity the goal: - to evaluate defendant's present capacity to understand (rational & factual understanding of legal) - to evaluate defendant's PRESENT capacity to assist counsel

Back

restoration/treatment to competency

Front

if defendant remains incompetent, then applies: - court must discharge from commitment -and consider civil commitment proceedings -criminal charges are 'suspended' but -criminal proceedings may resume when/if defendant regains competency vast majority of defendants are restored to competency research has shown that experts tend to overpredict restoration to competency people charged with more serious (violent) crimes and who have a criminal history are more likely to be predicted to be reportable actual restoration failure is predicted by 1. a long standing psychotic disorder and/or 2. a permanent cognitive disorder (low IQ) 3. older defendants

Back

outcomes of assessments

Front

about 2-8% of felony arrests are referred for a competency assessment significant variability across jurisdictions majority of assessments found competent (70-80%) psychosis and intellectual disabilities often predict incompetence now conducted in outpatient facilities, jails, courthouses most incompetent defendants become competent with treatment

Back

drope v missouri

Front

SCOTUS 1975 judge and prosecution have obligations to raise issue of competence court must be alert to new circumstances that suggest incompetence

Back

initiate inpatient treatment plan

Front

treat underlying psychiatric illness -medications likely necessary -psychotherapy -group/milieu therapy -time -structure/safety meds are fairly effectively; other traditional psychiatric tx not so much

Back

Dusky v United States

Front

SCOTUS 1960 Dusky had schizophrenia --> accomplice --> drove car in a sexual assault of a girl by two teens after arrest: evaluated by psychiatrist who said: he is oriented to "time, place and person" therefore competent; second psychiatrist said he's schizophrenic and therefore not competent court rules him competent altho was actively hallucinating during trial --> found guilty and sentenced SCOTUS then ruled you can't rule he's competent just bc he's oriented

Back

competency

Front

a PRESENT STATE assessment of the person's MENTAL CAPACITY to make specific decisions part of state's parens patriae obligation required to make decisions about: -money -medical care -being prosecuted for a crime

Back

sell vs united states

Front

SCOTUS june 16, 2003 sell had long history of mental illness found incompetent to stand trial for charges of fraud and attempted murder sell contested involuntary use of medications antipsychotic medication can be forcibly administered to a defendant solely for treatment to become competent to stand trial in limited circumstances important gov interests are at stake forced medication will significantly further state interests: -likely to render the defendant competent -unlikely to have side effects that will interfere with ability to conduct defense medication is necessary to further state interests and less intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve substantially the same results medications are medically appropriate

Back

godinex v morgan

Front

established that Dusky competency is competency for everything for everything --> waive rights, counsel, etc. inability to actually represent self is irrelevant retained that waiver of rights must be intelligent and voluntary it is still not really clear what that means

Back

Not Guilty by Reasons of Mental Disease or Defect (NGI)

Front

defendant's mental state AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME involved a mental disease or defect mental disease or defect made person unable to: appreciate wrongfulness of the act OR conform their actions to the law

Back

jackson v indiana

Front

1973 theon jackson, a deaf-mute who was illiterate, was charged with counts ruled not competent (low IQ) his attorney claimed the commitment was a "life sentence" bc he could not be treated SCOTUS agreed and ruled that you can't hold a person for competency restoration for longer than a "reasonable period of time" to determine if competency can be restored if not, must be civilly committed or let go

Back

competency to stand trial

Front

indiv PRESENT ABILITY to understand the charges and legal proceedings at the time of trial and to assist his/her attorney

Back

standards of competency

Front

a factual understanding of the proceedings a rational understanding of the proceedings be able to assist his attorney

Back

Dusky V US significance

Front

established standards for competency conviction of an incompetent defendant violates due process of law

Back