Forensic Psychology For Dummies (102 page)

Are diagnosed with a mental disorder, typically schizophrenia and/or other psychotic symptoms (although some authorities try to dissuade practitioners from using such diagnoses because a jury, and even a judge, may misinterpret it by thinking it means a split personality rather than a lack of contact with reality).

Are found to lack competence in the formal forensic mental health assessment of their cognitive and related abilities.

Considering children’s competency

In general, courts don’t have a firm view on how old a person must be before he’s competent to give evidence or stand trial. The age has varied considerably over time and differs between jurisdictions. If any doubt exists, the child is assessed to demonstrate his ability:

To accurately perceive, recall and share facts.

To distinguish truth from lies.

To understand that he must tell the truth.

Restoring someone’s competence

If a defendant isn’t declared competent to stand trial, the assessment moves into another gear and is required to indicate whether the defendant can be helped to become competent in some way and, if so, how long this process may take. After all, the court wants to bring the person to justice. If an expert says that the person is probably never going to be fit to plead, or at least in the foreseeable future, the court has to decide whether to drop the charges or commit the defendant to some sort of institution. This detainment can become a form of endless imprisonment, even though most jurisdictions require a regular review of the person’s condition, often by some sort of mental health tribunal at which psychologists are often present, to assess whether he’s now able to deal with the criminal trial.

People assigned by the courts to a mental health institution or some other setting, because for example they aren’t competent to stand trial without the requirement for treatment, can be incarcerated for much longer than they would be if they were found guilty of a crime. An assessment of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ can have the same outcome. For this reason, some defence lawyers may try to avoid an assessment of incompetence, or insanity, so that their clients are released sooner.

In order to enable defendants to cope with the court process, they may be given medication. This can mislead the jury into thinking that the calm, quiet person they see listening to the evidence is exhibiting behaviour that would be the same without that medication. Therefore, legal debate exists about whether enabling the person to be competent before the court is actually helping his case or whether it’s better to try and get treatment, so that what the court sees is a person whose actions aren’t being controlled by medication.