Laurie Ragatz

Evaluating conditional release in not guilty by reason of insanity acquittees: A prospective follow-up study in Virginia

Detailed research on treatment and risk management approaches with not guilty by reason of insanity acquittees (NGRI) during their conditional release is needed as states increasingly use community-based services for these individuals. Grounded in case law, and supported by follow-up studies demonstrating low recidivism rates, states have been encouraged in their efforts to conditionally release NGRI acquittees. The authors evaluated a state-wide sample of 127 NGRI acquittees released into the community after spending a mean of 61.63 months (SD = 76.54) in the hospital. One hundred individuals were committed to the hospital for lengthier treatment (M hospital time = 77.23 months, SD = 79.84), but 27 individuals were released to the community after a relatively short hospital stay (M hospital time = 5.60 months, SD = 3.01). Regarding release, 96 individuals (75.6%) maintained their conditional release. After evaluating a host of demographic and standardized risk data, the following variables predicted revocation on conditional release: previous failure on conditional release, nonadherence with hospital treatment, dangerousness to others, and previous violent charges. A multivariate survival analysis determined criminal behavior and previous failure on conditional release predicted time to revocation. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of considering standardized risk variables in the community-based management of forensic patients. In addition, the data are supportive of continued attempts at moving insanity acquittees from the hospital to the community via conditional release.

Sex, sexual orientation, and sexism: what influence do these factors have on verdicts in a crime-of-passion case?

ABSTRACT This study investigated the influence of defendant sex, sexual orientation, and participant sex on perceptions of a crime-of-passion. An online sample of 458 individuals read a scenario describing a homicide and provided judgments of verdict, sentence length, legal elements, and sexism. We hypothesized heterosexual female defendants would most likely receive a verdict of manslaughter, be found less guilty, and receive shorter sentences. We were also interested in whether benevolent sexism would contribute to defendant culpability decisions. Lastly, perceptions of legal elements for manslaughter (e.g., great provocation) and murder (e.g., intentionality of actions) were explored. Results demonstrated heterosexual female defendants were less guilty and received the shortest sentences. Also, heterosexual defendants were most likely to meet the manslaughter legal elements. Benevolent sexism contributed significantly to guilt perceptions.

Does Ambivalent Sexism Influence Verdicts for Heterosexual and Homosexual Defendants in a Self-Defense Case?

The current research examined the role of defendant and participant sex, presence or absence of expert testimony of the “battered person syndrome”, and sexual orientation of the defendant on perceptions of guilt in a self-defense case. The role of sexism in judgments of culpability was also examined. A sample of 442 participants read a self-defense case scenario and responded to questions pertaining to verdict, defendant culpability, legal element ratings, and sexist attitudes. Results revealed a four-way interaction, showing female participants prescribed the lowest guilt ratings to heterosexual female and homosexual male defendants who received expert testimony of the battered person syndrome. When heterosexual male defendants received expert testimony, ratings of guilt significantly increased. A multiple regression was conducted to determine whether legal and extra-legal factors predicted defendant culpability. Sexist attitudes (benevolent sexism towards men and women) and certain legal elements were predictive of defendant culpability. Limitations and implications are discussed.

Expert Testimony of the Battered Person Syndrome, Defendant Gender, and Sexual Orientation in a Case of Duress: Evaluating Legal Decisions

The current study examined the utility of expert testimony of the battered person syndrome (BPS) in a case of duress and the extent to which defendant gender, defendant sexual orientation, and participant gender influence mock jury decisions in a case of duress. Participants (N = 413) read a scenario based on U.S. v. Dixon (2006) and answered questions assessing verdict, guilt, sentence length, duress legal elements, and attributes typically ascribed to victims of abuse. Results showed heterosexual female defendants were assigned the lowest sentences and met more of the legal elements of duress (i.e., were coerced, more likely to be believed, and purchased a gun to prevent harm) and attributes (i.e., experienced severe abuse, learned helplessness) compared to other defendants. When mock jurors received expert testimony, they provided lower rates of guilt and sentencing for defendants. Results also showed the inclusion of BPS expert testimony increased ratings for many of the legal elements of duress and attributes typically associated with intimate partner violence. In addition, results suggested that while heterosexual female defendants are more likely to be believed in a case of duress, expert testimony of BPS is helpful to all defendants. Limitations and future directions for research and practice are discussed.

Self-Defense and Legal Decision Making: The Role of Defendant and Victim Gender and Gender-Neutral Expert Testimony of the Battered Partner's Syndrome

This study investigated the influence of defendant characteristics, expert testimony, self-defense elements, and battered partner attributes on conviction in a homicide trial. An online sample of 442 U.S. mock jurors evaluated a self-defense scenario, provided a verdict, and answered questions pertaining to defendant culpability, legal elements, and battered partner attributes. Results showed that heterosexual female defendants were most likely to meet legal requirements of self-defense. Female participants were more likely to believe that heterosexual female defendants exhibited attributes associated with the battered partner’s syndrome (i.e., suffered from abuse and learned helplessness). Male participants were less likely to believe that homosexual male defendants suffered from attributes associated with the syndrome. There were no effects of expert testimony on the battered partner’s syndrome. Logistic regression analysis indicated that self-defense legal elements and belief that the defendant should have left the abusive relationship predicted greater likelihood of conviction. Limitations and implications for jury selection and attorney arguments are discussed.

Mental Health Symptoms and their Relationship to Specific Deficits in Competency to Proceed to Trial Evaluations

This study examined clinical, legal and social variables, and their relationship to forensic evaluators’ opinions of competency to stand trial on each of the three Dusky prongs (factual understanding of court proceedings, rational understanding of court proceedings and ability to assist ones counsel). Information was extracted from 257 competency to proceed to trial evaluations conducted between 2010 and 2013. Psychotic symptoms, intellectual disabilities and impairment in mental status (e.g., lack of orientation to person, place, time and/or situation) predicted opinions of not competent to stand trial across the Dusky competency prongs. However, the prongs were differentially related to mental health issues. Impaired mental status was associated with impairment on all three competency prongs. Delusions were associated with impaired rational understanding and impaired ability to assist ones counsel. Finally, thought derailment and a diagnosis of mental retardation were associated with impaired factual understanding of court proceedings.

Mental health symptoms predict competency to stand trial and competency restoration success

Purpose Although several studies have examined demographic and clinical variables associated with findings of incompetency to stand trial (IST), few studies have examined factors influencing competency restoration success. This study is among the first to longitudinally examine demographic variables and mental health symptoms’ impact on both IST and competency non-restoration. This study fills a gap in the competency to stand trial literature by utilizing the same defendants to examine progression through initial competency decisions to their eventual restoration outcomes. Methods This study examined demographic variables and mental health symptoms differentiating defendants deemed competent to stand trial, not competent and restored, and not competent and not restored. We coded and analysed 237 competency evaluations consecutively conducted over a 3-year period. Results Specific psychotic (e.g., thought derailment, delusions, auditory/visual hallucinations) and neuropsychological symptoms (e.g., impaired executive functioning, impaired mental status) were independently associated with findings of IST and non-restoration. Additional analyses revealed an intellectual disability diagnosis and a greater number of psychotic and manic symptoms predicted a decreased likelihood of competency restoration. Conclusions These findings suggest more severe symptom combinations (e.g., psychotic and manic symptoms) are predictors of both initial findings of incompetency and non-restorability.

Competency to Proceed to Trial Evaluations and Rational Understanding

In Dusky v. United States, the United States Supreme Court established “rational understanding” as a necessary component of a defendant’s competency to stand trial. Yet, rational understanding has engendered misunderstanding, stemming from inconsistent court rulings and lack of systematic attention given to definitions of rationality. The purpose of this article is to assist with the conceptualization of rational understanding as it relates to competency to proceed to trial. This will be accomplished through a review of legal decisions and scholarly papers that provide various definitions of rationality. We discuss the suitability of standardized instruments of competency and how they may assist in providing a valid metric for evaluating rational abilities. We also provide discussion of how case law, in conjunction with psycholegal research, can be used to gain nuanced insight into operationalizations of rational understanding. By gaining a thorough understanding of rationality in competency to proceed to trial evaluations, clinicians may improve on the quality and foundation of their evaluations.