Ronald Roesch

Assessment and conceptualization of competency to stand trial

Based on an examination of current methods used to define and assess a defendants competency to stand trial, the authors propose an assessment and research instrument, referred to as the Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI). The IFI is a structured interview and rating scale designed to take into account both legal and mental health issues, and calls for an interdisciplinary approach to the assessment of competency. The purpose of the present study was to provide preliminary reliability and validity data on the use of the IFI in one jurisdiction. The results are discussed in terms of policy implications and the development of methods for evaluating competency with brief screening interviews in less restrictive settings.

Mental disorders in European Prison Systems

American and European prison systems are faced with large numbers of mentally ill prisoners. It is estimated that correctional facilities in the United States house twice as many persons with serious mental illnesses as do mental hospitals (Torrey, 1995). North American studies (e.g., Roesch & Golding, 1985; Teplin, 1990) and European studies have found high prevalence rates of mental disorders in penal institutions. European studies have yielded fairly consistent findings about the prevalence rates of mental disorders in samples of unsentenced prisoners. Lifetime prevalence rates of mental disorders, including substance-related disorders and personality disorders, were found to be 71% in Denmark (Andersen, Sestoft, Lillebaek, Gabrielsen, & Kramp, 1996) and 71% in England (Birmingham, Mason, & Grubin, 1996). Current prevalence rates were found to be 64% in Denmark (Andersen et al., 1996), 62% in England (Birmingham et al., 1996), 63% in England and Wales (Brooke, Taylor, Gunn, & Maden, 1996) and 62% in Ireland (Smith, O’Neill, Tobin, Walshe, & Dooley, 1996). Thus,

Psychology and law : the state of the discipline

1. Psychology and Law: An Overview J.R.P. Ogloff, D. Finkelman. I: Human Behavior in the Trial Process. 2. Juries: The Current State of the Empirical Literature M.T. Nietzel, et al. 3. Witnesses to Crime: Social and Cognitive Factors Governing the Validity of Peoples Reports G.L. Wells, et al. 4. Preventing Mistaken Convictions in Eyewitness Identification Trials: The Case against Traditional Safeguards S.D. Penrod, B. Cutler. II: Forensic Assessment and Treatment. 5. Forensic Assessment R.B. Nicholson. 6. Predicting Violence in Mentally and Personality Disordered Individuals K.S. Douglas, C.D. Webster. 7. Forensic Treatment: A Review of Programs and Research K. Heilbrun, P. Griffin. 8. Civil Law: Employment and Discrimination J. Goodman-Delahunty. 9. Best Interests of the Child: New Twists on an Old Theme M.B. Liss, M.J. McKinley-Pace. IV: Ethics and Professional Issues. 10. Preparing for Two Cultures: Education and Training in Law and Psychology D.N. Bersoff. 11. Ethical and Legal Contours of Forensic Psychology J.R.P. Ogloff. Appendix. Index.

Comparative Examination of the Prevalence of Mental Disorders Among Jailed Inmates in Canada and the United States

The seriously mentally ill receive better care in British Columbia than anyAmerican state, according to a recent comparative study conducted by Dr. E.Fuller Torrey of the Public Citizen Health Research Group founded by con-sumer advocate Ralph Nader. Torrey claims that mental health services inBritish Columbia scored 21 out of a possible 25 points along several service di-mensions, while the closest U.S. state received 17 points. He further maintainsthat compared to New York state, British Columbia appears to be deliveringservices almost twice as good at approximately half the cost (“B.C.’s mentalhealth system rates better than U.S.,” 1993, p. 5). These claims lend supportto an earlier comparative analysis of the criminalization of psychiatrically illpeople by Borzecki and Wormith (1988). They argued that, in spite of incon-clusive Canadian research, it would not be unexpected if, in future studies,rates were found to be lower in Canada than in the United States because ofthe differences in the mental health care systems of these two countries. If thisexpectation is valid, then the prevalence of serious mental illness among peo-ple in Canada should be lower than those arrested in the United States. In oneof the few Canadian studies, we surveyed men admitted to a pretrial jail in alarge Canadian city. Jailed inmates were selected rather than prison inmatesbecause of the likelihood that substantial number of mentally ill individuals

Training in Law and Psychology: Models from the Villanova Conference

Although the domain of law and psychology is a burgeoning and popular field of study, there has never been a concerted effort to evaluate current training models or to develop newer, more effective ones. Forty-eight invited participants attended a national conference held at Villanova Law School to remedy this deficiency. Working groups addressed issues of education and training for the undergraduate level; for doctoral-level programs in law and social science; for forensic clinical training; for joint-degree (JD/PhD-PsyD) programs; for those in practica, internships, and postdoctoral programs; and for continuing education. This article delineates levels and models of training in each of these areas.

An Examination of the Relationship Between Competency to Stand Trial, Competency to Waive Interrogation Rights, and Psychopathology

This study compared the legal abilities of defendants (N = 212) with current primary psychotic disorders (n = 44), affective disorders (n = 42), substance abuse disorders (n = 54), and no diagnosed major mental illness (n = 72). Defendants with primary psychotic disorders demonstrated more impairment than did other defendants in their understanding of interrogation rights, the nature and object of the proceedings, the possible consequences of proceedings, and their ability to communicate with counsel. Psychosis was of limited value as a predictor however, and high rates of legal impairment were found even in defendants with no diagnosed major mental illness. Sources of within-group variance were examined to further explain this finding. Policy and clinical implications of these results are discussed.

Social Science and the Courts: The Role of Amicus Curiae Briefs

Social scientists have increasingly become involved in the submission of amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs in legal cases being decided by state and federal courts. This increase has triggered considerable debate about the use of briefs to communicate relevant social science research. This article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of various methods of summarizing social science research for the courts. It also reviews the procedures for submitting briefs developed by the American Psychology-Law Society which, in collaboration with the American Psychological Association, has submitted its first brief inMaryland v. Craig, a case recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mental Disorder and the Criminal Justice System: A Review

In addressing the United States Congress, the late British Prime Minister Winston Churchill noted that the American and British nations were “two people divided by a common language.” The same might be said about the mental health and legal systems. By virtue of the use of similar language and a failure to note differences in the meaning of words such as “sane” and “mentally ill” when used by legal and health professionals, neither justice nor mental health is well-served. In this paper, we will suggest that the problems of mentally ill offenders arise in part from that groups’ unique position at the intersection of the mental health and legal systems, and that differences in the meaning of the term mental illness as used by the two systems have led to the growth of a largely unstudied population who fall at the semantic dysjunction of the two frameworks. These individuals, who may suffer from significant mental disorders, are not among those whom we shall call the judicially ill, that is, those found unfit to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of insanity, or guilty but insane. To the legal system, the fit and sane convicted are therefore simply criminals. By virtue of their mental disorder, however, they constitute a needy minority within the population of the criminally incarcerated. We will suggest that because of their particular legal and psychological characteristics, their needs are ill-served and their rights may be abrogated. In order to elucidate our thesis, we shall consider some of the issues that arise as the mentally disordered move from the community through arrest, trial and incarceration, and back to the community. As we shall see, this process often proves to be but one revolution in a cycle of many repetitions. Some parts of the process have been well-studied, others are only now emerging as areas of interest for scholars and social policy commentators. As many of these issues are thoroughly addressed in the succeeding contributions to this journal, we shall address them only briefly. Others not covered elsewhere will be discussed in more detail.

Problem-solving courts in Canada: A review and a call for empirically-based evaluation methods

While problem-solving courts may soon become permanent fixtures within the criminal justice system in Canada, little is actually known of their effectiveness in dealing with crime. The current paper will review the fundamental basis for these court models, with special attention on their arrival in Canada. The focus will be on three particular forms of problem-solving courts - mental health court, drug treatment court and community court - due in large part to the availability of literature. Existing evaluations, both process and outcome, of both the Canadian and American models will be discussed and their inadequacies addressed. It is hoped that this article will serve to dispel myths surrounding the ethical application of random assignment when evaluating these court systems. Through the application of experimental methodology, evaluations may finally be able to address the issue of whether these court systems are effective alternatives to the traditional criminal justice stream.

The referral decision scale

We examined the validity of the Referral Decision Scale (RDS), a test designed to screen for mental disorder in jail inmates, in a sample of 790 men admitted to an urban pretrial jail. Our results indicated that, in general, the RDS had excellent reliability and acceptable validity as a screening measure for serious mental disorder in jail settings, despite making a large number of false positive errors relative to both contemporaneous and subsequent assessments of mental disorder. Although the RDS is well suited for use in research, more information is needed before the test is used for clinical purposes. We discuss some potential problems with the use of the RDS in correctional systems.