Forensics Final
5 Points of Dusky
(1) Two-pronged competency test: A) Capacity to understand the criminal process B) Ability to assist counsel in defense -Is he able to explain to his attorney things that would be helpful to his defense -If the answer to either of these is no they aren't competent to stand trial (2) "Present" ability (3) "Capacity" as opposed to willingness/knowledge -Its not just that "Idk what a jury is, im not competent" but it's do you have the capacity to learn rather than shear knowledge -It also cannot just be an unwillingness to learn -Refusing to corporate bc they don't want to vs. they cant bc they have a psych problem (4) "Reasonable" degree of understanding -Doesn't require perfect understanding -Flexible test (5) "Ration" and "factual" understanding of proceeding against him -Factual: understanding what will happen to them if he is convicted -Rational: the cognitive process of understanding that they might get convicted? -If you fail either one then you are incompetent to stand trial
Competency Criteria Under Riese
(1) Whether the patient is aware of her situation -Have to know where they're at, why they're being held, and who the doctors are (2) Whether the patient is able to understand the risks, benefits, and the alternatives to the proposed medication (3) Clear link between the patient's delusions or hallucinations and decision to refuse medication -They have to think for example that the doctor is trying to posion me, its not meds its poision and so this is why I don't want to take the meds -This is a clear link -If they understand that the purpose of this meds is not for some delusional reason, plus meets the other two criteria, they can be found competent and can refuse meds -Must be proven by clear and convincing evidence]
Kansas SVP Statute
(a) Any person who has been convicted or charged with a sexually violent offense and (b)who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person (c.) likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence -Hendricks has been in prisons many times, is about to be released, diagnosed pedophile, likely to engage in acts of sexual violence bc he admitted it, so this statute makes him be sent to a hospital forever instead of being released -Hendricks argued that he is being punished twice for the same crime, but the supreme court says that's not a valid argument bc the statute is not a criminal function it's a preventative function that is civil
Paraphilia Not otherwise specified (NOS)
-"Diagnoses whose rarity, empirical criterion validation or symptomatic expression has been insufficient to be codified" -Necrophilia (attracted to corpses) -Dentists put patient under anesthetics and rape them without their knowledge, even tho they aren't dead its something similar -Also can find them in mortuaries -Coprophilia -Sexual arousal to feces -Zoophilia -Sexual fantasies or behavior with nonhuman animals -Hebephilia -Attraction to individuals going through adolescence -Attraction to pubescence kids -Different from pedophilia which is attraction to prepubescent kids -Doren wrote evaluating sex offenders book popularizing hebephilia as a disorder and people testified arguing whether or not it was generally accepted among psychologists -Arguments saying how can this be a mental disorder when a majority of males are attracted to individuals this age -Arguments that girls at this age (adolescence) are at their most fertile (natural attraction argument) and that it is publicized and everyone is naturally attracted to that? -Court in NY said hebaphilla is not generally accepted but NY doesn't have precedental power over any other states so we still see this with some frequency -All the paraphilias tell you what the person is attracted to/what the object is, not that they have the disorder
The distinction between rational and factual understanding
-"If I was convicted on all three counts and they ran consecutively, I'd get 45 years. If they ran concurrently, I'd only have to do 15." -Good factual understanding -"My real name is John Jones Jesus 2000. God has ordered I be ordained the chief religious officer for the state of Florida in a ceremony on the steps of the capital. If they try to interfere, God will kill all the white people, and they won't stand for that. They'll have to let me go." -Very clearly a delusional belief regarding the likelihood that he will be convicted -Poor rational understanding
Irresistible Impulse Test
-"Irresistible and uncontrollable impulse to commit the offense, even if he remained able to understand the nature of the offense and its wrongfulness" -Volitional, not cognitive -Volitional: free will -Known as the "policeman at the elbow test" because the person is undeterable -The idea would still commit the crime even if they were handcuffed to a cop and knew they were going to get caught, that's how truly irresistible it is -Ex. Kleptomaniacs know its morally and criminally wrong to steal but they feel compelled to steal anyway -This could be an irresistible and uncontrollable impulse -Hard to determine whether an impulse is irresistible or just not resisted -If theres any evidence of premeditation then you cant come into court and claim that it was an act of irresistible impulse -Ex. Going out a door that would prevent you from getting caught could be used as evidence -The irresistible impulse has to be the product of a mental disorder
Welfare & institutions code
-"Sexually violent predator" means a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior -Requires a mental disorder -Never an issue because they are already convicted of a crime that meets a mental disorder (pedophilia) -The disorder has to make the person a danger (cant say some disorder that is so irrelevant makes him a danger, that would be invalid) -And does that disorder make it likely that they will reoffend
Current status
-20 states have SVP commitment -Its not a political thing -These statutes tend to be a reaction to when a pedophile does something horrible and the state legislatures try to do this to prevent it from happening again -Extremely costly: CA pays ~$175,000 a year per person -Double death row inmate cost -Commitment terms are indeterminate -Hendricks was convicted in criminal court (serve 10 years in prison), but if you're committed as a sexually violent predator there is not sentence, this means you'll be there until you are no longer mentally ill or dangerous -This means you're very unlikely to ever be released in cali -You will get reviewed periodically, but it doesn't guarantee you'll ever be released
Leroy Hendricks
-5 convictions since 1955 -Diagnosed pedophile -Extra and interfamilial child molester (non-gender specific) -Admitted he could not control his sexual thoughts, especially during times of stress -He claimed "only sure way to stop molesting children is to die"
Sexual Masochism & Sadism
-5-10% of population has engaged in some form of sadomasochism -30% of clubs are female; equally common in both heterosexuals and homosexuals -These clubs are predominately males -Not necessarily driven by the desire to have intercourse while this is going on -They don't need to have intercourse to orgasm, it's the behavior that drives their desire -While they're engaged in these behaviors, rarely are they also having intercourse -It's the fantasy of the behavior that their ultimate arousal is about -These acts are heavily scripted -Most are switchable (can switch from sadist to masochists and vice versa), but masochists far out number sadists -Occasionally, sadists murder and mutilate -Its not a crime to engage in these behaviors if you find a consenting partner
Five Basic WIC Commitments
-5150: (72 hour hold)— most common type -A brief observation period -Mental health professionals assess to see if you meet criteria to be committed -5250 (14 day hold)— after 72 hour expires and still meets LPS criteria you're held for 14 more days -5260 (additional 14 day hold)--after 14 days expires and still meets LPS criteria you're held for 14 more days -5270.15 (30 day hold)--after 14 days expires and still meets LPS criteria you're held for 30 more days -5300 (180 day hold)--after 30 days expires and still meets LPS criteria you're held for 180 more days
feigning vs. malingering
-A person who is malingering is intentionally exaggerating or fabricating psychological problems or symptoms; this is a conscious choice, motivated for external gain. -feigning refers to exaggerating or fabricating psychological problems or symptoms, regardless of what the intent—if any—may be.
Riese v. St. Mary's Hospital and Medical Center
-At 5150, unless there is an extreme emergency, they cannot forcibly medicate you -Is there a presumption of incompetence to refuse medication if committed under 5250? (If you're comitted under 5250 [ur going to be civilly committed and have a mental disorder and are dangerous to self or others] are you competent enough to refuse medication?) -LPS doesn't explicitly grant the right -Reise was admitted on voluntary status and refused to take meds and then they changed her status to involuntary and refused to take her meds, they forced her and she appealed -Holding: cannot be involuntarily medicated solely on basis of civil commitment -Just bc you're committed under 5250, it doesn't follow that they can forcibly medicate you -Riese Petition: separate hearing to determine whether individual is competent to refuse psychotropic medications -If the patient wants to refuse meds they can file a riese petition (takes 5 days out of the 14 at least) to see if competent to refuse meds -If you are found competent to refuse meds, you can refuse meds -If you are found incompetent to refuse meds, you can be medicated against your will
Competency to Stand Trial (CST)
-Can be initiated by any officer of the court -Defense attorney tells the judge that I have concern with my clients competency, the judge can raise it, or the prosecution can raise it (very rare) -Prosecution raising it is very controversial because during the evaluation the info the defendant says during it cant be used against them in court but it can lead the prosecution to make theories about what actually happened and then they can claim that they came up with that theory on their own not from the info in the evaluation -Burden of proof is on def. (POE std.) -Defendant has to prove that they're incompetent -1 of 15 defendants evaluated for CST; of those, 4 of 5 is found CST -Very low threshold ("even a watermelon can be found competent to stand trial") -The "ultimate issue" issue -Hired by court to evaluate defendant and courts require you to say a definite answer of if they are competent or not (This is problematic) -The language that does this defendant have a reasonable degree of competency/understanding -Not defined what is reasonable to this kind of leaves the decision to the expert -Problematic because most of the time the judges agree with expert -If found CST —>criminal proceedings resume -If found IST —>sent to jail/hospital for restoration to competency -Typically a psychiatrist that will prescribe medication to get their competency restored
Feigning
-Cant malinger competency because the dusky standard doesn't involve mental disorder, but you can feign competency -Feigning competency is when you're trying to fake and make it appear that you are incompetent and cant stand trial -"Mute by malice or visitation of god?" -Back 13th century England: defendants who were charged would refuse to plea to a crime because they wanted to just be put to death so their family could keep their property instead of assets taken away and given to the government -So are they refusing to speak because of some mental disorder (visitation of god) or is this just malice (instance of feigning) -Now fake "too dumb" or "too crazy" to stand trial -Estimated to occur in ~15-20% of CST cases -1 in 5 cases -Ways to detect: -Look for unusual patterns, e.g., psychosis -People will read a few books on what psychotic disorders look like and then try to act like that but its easy for people that are trained to detect this -People tend to way over-endorse amount and severity of symptoms -Feigning people tend to be more than happy to tell you about all the symptoms they experience all the time, while people w real symptoms are more gaurded -The inventory of legal knowledge (ILK) -61 simple true/false questions test with feedback -If they score less than chance (i.e., 30 +/- 6) we can be sure that they are intentionally lying -Discrimination accuracy = ~90-95% -To validate the test they had group w/ severe mental disorders who didn't meet dusty criteria take it and found that even this group does better than chance -90-95% of the time it can separate those who are feigning and those who are not -Accuracy is so high partly because people who feign are not good at it
Volitional tests: distinguishing the sane from the insane
-Capacity to make choices -Was the behavior goal directed -Was it some type of means to an end -Dead giveaway is whether the person chooses to be at a particular location at a particular time -If they have control to be there at a certain place and time it suggests that they have control over their behavior -Ex. Sex offenders put themselves in situations with children around -Any evidence of premeditation -Planning something out, waiting for perfect time suggests control over behavior -Ex. Sex offenders waiting for parents to not be around to prey on child -Regard for apprehension -Is the person worried about getting caught and taking steps to avoid getting caught? -Ex. Sex offender using a condom
How the commitment process works:
-Case gets flagged and reviewed by the Department of corrections and rehabilitation and they identify if the convict has a qualifying crime, if they do then they refer the case to board of parole hearings -The board of parole hearings obtains records and makes a final decision on if they believe the convict will be a reoffender of sexual offense and likely has a mental disorder, if yed they send case to department of mental health -Department of mental health has 2 people look at case and conducts administrative review, clinical screening, and evaluation to determine if they have a mental disorder, if yes sends to designated district attorney -Then the designated county counsel decides if they want to the department of mental health's recommendation and take the case to court, if yes they file a petition to commit the offender and the case goes to superior court of California -If the superior court of California judge determines that there is probably cause, a jury trial is held to determine when the offender meets the criteria of the statute and is a sexually violent predator (SVP) -If at any point along the chart the answer is no, then the inmate will serve out his sentence, they will end up on the sex offender registry and
Civil Commitment (2 types)
-Civil commitment: the legal procedure that permits a person to be certified as mentally ill and to be institutionalized against his or her will -They are put into the hospital (government facility) and they do not want to be there but are forced against their will -All 50 states have these Two justifications (or types): (the danger mentioned has to be the result of mental disorder) -Parens Patria (the parent of the nation) -Think of this as paternalism (your parents know better than you[a teen] and they are going to make decisions for you because their more wise and will make better decisions for your well being, even if you don't like them) -Active danger -You're actively dangerous to yourself (typically you're going to commit suicide or are cutting self, self mutilation) -Passive danger -You're unable to care for self (unable to provide food, shelter, or clothing) -If you don't have those you are going to die -Parens patria says were allowed to step in if someones going to sit in park w/ no food or shelter in winter which will cause death or if we know someones going to kill themselves -Police power -When someone is dangerous to others not necessarily themselves -Danger has to be result of mental disorder -Because of the mental disorder, they cant form mens rea, and so the state is justified from preventing this from happening -If someone is going to do something harmful just bc they don't like someone else or are reckless (not due to mental disorder), the government cant intervene, they just have to wait for the actus reus occurs
Types of Competency
-Competency to confess -You have to understand what the miranda warning means in order to waive it -They have to understand that they have the right to remain silent, to have an attorney, etc. and that if they waive that right and tell the police they did the crime that the consequence will be that they are likely to be arrested -Competency to plead guilty -Don't want someone who is so impaired that they don't know what they're doing to plead guilty -Competency to stand trial -Have to be aware and understand certain things -Most common -Competency to waive an attorney (pro se) -To be your own attorney -Competency to refuse medication/treatment -Have to be able to intelligently and voluntarily make the decision to refuse treatment -Competency to be executed -If a jury sends you to death row, if on death row for long time and your mental health deteriorates to where you don't even know what execution means/is or don't understand why they are being executed, that is inhumane -Most controversial and most difficult to do
Cognitive tests: distinguishing the sane from the insane
-Crazy act, non-crazy reason = not insane -Killing the president because you don't like his policies = not insane -Crazy act, crazy reason = insane -Killing the president because you think he's stealing your thoughts and trying to poison you = insane -This is obviously due to psychosis -How do you tell if it's a crazy reason? -Did he know what he was doing? -Was there motive, did he know his victims, -Never going to be dispositive/have that single smoking gun (Not black and white) -Did he know it was wrong? -Did he take efforts to avoid detection, destroy evidence, run away, wait til police were gone
Assessing DTS
-Demographic correlates of suicide -Males (4:1) {More likely to commit suicide if male} -Age: risk increase w/ age in males; females highest risk = 35-65 -Race: caucasian (2:1) -Marital status: single, divorced, or widowed higher risk -Psychiatric correlates of suicide -Major depression (40-60% of all cases in which they killed themselves, that they had some type of depressive symptoms; not that 40-60% of ppl w depression killed themselves) -Alcohol dependence (20%) -Schizophrenia (10%) -Young males that learn they have schizophrenia are at an increased to kill themselves not long after they get the diagnosis -Hard to predict -Its better to over predict that under predict -Better to call someone suicidal who is not and committing them than saying someone isnt sucidal when they are and they leave and go commit suicide
O' Connor v. Donaldson (1975)
-Donaldson went to visit father, he had a history of schizo and thought the neighbor was trying to poison him, so father took him to the hospital and was committed, and was help for 15 years even tho he was never found a danger to others or self, he appealed and the court said: -Involuntary commitment requires mental illness and dangerousness -Requirement applies to all states but states give the substantive definitions -States are free to define it however they like -All states have these statutes and define them differently, but they all require a mental illness and dangerous -Some states added a clause about least restrictive alternative -Cant be sent to a hospital and committed if theres another strategy -Ex. If you just need them to take meds and they are willing, you cant commit them
Indiana v. Edwards (2008)
-Edwards stole shoes, security guard caught him in parking lot and he shot him and wounded others -Was found incompetent then restored then incompetent and restored and then found incompetent -He wanted to represent himself -Court said no, you're competent enough to stand trial but not competent enough to represent yourself -Got an attorney and convicted on attempted murder charge and then appealed to supreme court and claimed farretta says I have a constitutional right to represent myself, and under Godinez since im competent to stand trial that means im competent enough to plead guilty, and if I can plead guilty then surely I am competent enough to be my own attorney -US SC: "we ask whether the Constitution permits a state to limit that defendants self representation right by insisting upon representation by counsel at trial—on the ground that the defendant lacks the mental capacity to conduct his trial defense unless represented." -one may be competent enough to assist counsel but not be own cousel (different severities and functioning problems) [APA supports this] -dusky assumes representation by counsel -allowing mentally ill to rep self could result in improper conviction and threaten right to fair trial -Held: -Say that a defendant can be forced to have an attorney if he's not sufficiently competent to act as his own attorney and moreover the standard for whether or not you are competent enough to be own attorney is a different/higher standard than dusky -defendant may be compelled to have assistance of counsel -Dusky =/= apply to comp. to represent oneself
Pro Se (representing self in court)
-Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975): "...respect for a defendant's freedom as a person mandates that he or she be permitted to make fundamental decisions about the course of the proceedings..." -Says any person has a right to represent himself -But it didn't deal with any competency issues -Trial judge must ensure that the defendant understands the "dangers and disadvantages" of representing himself -Godinez v Moron, 509 U.S. 389 (1993): "... a defendant may plead guilty (and thereby waive both his right to counsel and his right to represent himself) if he is competent to stand trial ..." -Says if a person is competent to stand trial they are also competent to plead guilty -Question: can a def. be CST but not competent to represent oneself? -Theres no case that directly addresses this issue -Does dusky also mean that you're competent to represent yourself -Is dusky the controlling standard that addresses competency to do pro se
The case of Mr. Davidson (1st degree murder)
-For over 20 years he and heard "devils committing abnormal sexual acts on family and self" -On the day of shooting, he was drinking when his boss told him to go home (not 1st time this happened) -He went home but returned later with a gun and shot the victim -Has pled not guilty by reason of insanity -Is he guilty?: -Used M' Naughten test because in california -Looks for: -know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, (2) that he did not know he was doing what was wrong -Looks for mental disorder: -Maybe has schizophrenia or bipolar 1 or some psychotic disorder -Potentially has a mental disorder -Was he suffering from psychosis at the time he shot his boss or was he drunk? -If he was drunk this claim fails -Is the reason he committed this act the result of his disorder? -Did he shoot his boss because he thinks hes that devil or that it would stop the devils from committing these sex acts?
Keep in mind: Disorder =/= illegal:
-Having a disorder doesn't mean that they did something illegal -Pedophilia (having urges) vs. child molestation -Having urges is not a crime, but touching a child or having child pornography is a crime -The act on the desire is the crime -An 18 year old has sex with a 14 year old could be child molestation but not pedophilia -Pedophiles are opportunists they have sex with whatever happens to be there and they think they can get away with -Ex. An adult 18 yr/o male never had thoughts about sexual desires on kids, but one day just sees what available and rapes them -Its child molestation but not pedophilia -Sexual sadism vs. rape -Consent vs. non consenting -Sadists are attracted to inflicting violence or pain, then rape is just -*Test Q*Adult males who rape other adults (very few will meet the criteria for sadism)
Toms score with static-99R
-His score of three puts him in the low-moderate risk category -The statute says is he likely to reoffend? But low-moderate doesn't make him likely to reoffend -Courts don't find this very helpful they want percentages of how likely -low= 5% -low-moderate= 15% -moderate-high= 19% -high= 32%
5250
-If, after 72 hours, the person is still in need of treatment, she can be certified for 14 more days. -Staff must show probable cause for extending commitment -Patients are afforded more safeguards -You have the opportunity to petition to have the commitment undone and get an attorney and have a hearing -Can call your own doctor to contradict staff -All on paper, but not usually practices -Problems: -not adversarial -If the patient says I want an attorney bc I don't want to be here, the patients attorney tend to do what they think is best for the patient -If they think the patient will get out and be bad again, they will instead advocate to keep them there in treatment -Advocate for whats best for you in their opinion, not necessarily what you want -rubber stamping: Judge typically always sides with the doctor, not the patients
Andrea Yates Trial Video: (Texas uses the M'Naghten test [both prongs: cognitive and volitional])
-Killed her 5 children, drowned them while deep in the grip of postpartum psychosis -Knew in her heart and psychotic mind that what she was doing was the right thing to do -Was convinced that satan was within her and if she did nothing her kids would burn in hell and if she did kill them they would go with god and be in heaven for all eternity -history of postpartum psychosis and admittance to psychiatric hospital -she called the cops and showed no emotion -Sought the death penalty but she had witnesses claiming her postpartum psychosis made her not guilty by reason of insanity -Both sides agreed that she was mentally ill -Key issue: whether she knew it was right or wrong -Seemed clear enough she knew it was illegal to murder kids bc she called the cops --In order to drown her kids in less than an hour she had to be organized because they were all able to panic (bathmat taken out) -Moral wrongfulness? -One expert said she thought she was doing a morally acceptable behavior due to her reasoning (She knew that what she was doing would be seen as wrong but she believed that it was right in her heart and psychotic mind) -Other expert said she knew it was morally and criminally wrong because she said she sinned (said she thought her act was a sin and that god would judge it as bad [suggests legally sane because she knew it was legally and morally wrong]) -Jury's verdict: guilty and sentenced to LWOP with possibility of parole in 4 years -Didn't get DP bc didn't feel she would be a continued threat to society -Lives in psychiatric ward and receives antipsychotic meds -If she was found not guilty she would have been involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital w/ release only if approved by the court -Jury didn't know this -Retrial and found not guilty by reason of insanity -Overturned because on cross examination they asked if he ever consulted to the tv show law and order -He implied he saw a law and order episode that a lady drowned her kids and tried to get away with it by claiming insanity -The episode was not filmed he just read the script for it -Judge had been getting yelled at for never overturning cases and this case was highly publicized and it got overturned
Mental Disorder Criteria
-Mental retardation (intellectual disability), other developmental disabilities, alcoholism, other drug abuse, or repeated antisocial behavior do not by themselves constitute a mental disorder -Not what counts as a mental disorder, but what doesn't count -But see Abhishek, Christopher & Appelbaum (2018) -32 states + DC permit civil commitment for substance abuse treatment -Now shifting it to be that people can be forced to get treatment against their will for substance abuse
Correlates of Sexual Recidivism
-Meta-analysis of 61 studies (n = 28,972 sex offenders) -Used reconvictions/arrests & parole violations to access recidivism for 4-5 year period -The studies let the guys go and tracked them for 4-5 years and looked to see how many got rearrested -Overall sexual recidivism rate = 13.4% -18.9% for rapists -12.7% for child molesters -Overall re-offense rate = 36% -risk factors: age (recidivism decreases as age increases), prior offenses, prior sex offenses, male victim, related child victim, Phallometric assessment (children), failure to complete treatment, any personality disorder, sexually abused as child (almost no correlation -.01), never been married -A lot of these risk factors are not all that correlated (There are correlations but there is not smoking gun) -Theres no one factor that makes it really likely that they are going to recidivise
M' Naghten Test
-Most common (about half the states) -Cognitive test: -At the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to (1) know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, (2) that he did not know he was doing what was wrong. (1) -nature refers to the physical aspects of the act -If the person thought he was holding a sandwich but its actually a gun -Quality refers to the harm that would result from behavior (2) -Wrongfulness can be criminal wrongfulness or moral wrongfulness -Breaking the law or doing something that is not morally okay -If you fail either prong one or two then you meet the test
what can be done with these guys?
-Mr Boggs: 36 yrs old, Shook a woman outside his apartment, "You've taken away my childhood. You're going to go to hell", No injury resulted; police will not charge him, Admits that he hears voices occasionally -Mr. Price: 28 yrs old, Long history of burglary and violence, "She stole my coat; im going to cut her", Has stabbed people in the past, No official history of mental disorder -Need criminal act (actus reas) and guilty mind (mens rea) with criminal law (conviction) -Under criminal law theres noting we can do to prevent these two to harm someone, just have to wait and see what happens -If you have some evil mind (mens rea) as a result of a mental disorder then the state can intervene before you do the criminal act -You don't need actus reas to prevent someone from doing something harmful under civil law -Boggs can be committed but price cant under civil law
American Legal Institute (ALI) Test
-Not responsible is "as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) [cognitive claim] or his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law [volitional] -This test doesn't care about moral wrongfulness but criminal wrongfulness instead -Recurring criminal or antisocial acts =/= mental disease or defect -Dahmer: -He knew what he was doing was criminally wrong because he chopped them up to not get caught taking the body out of his apartment -Took efforts to avoid being detected beforehand -Voluntary intoxication sometimes to do these acts -Its possible that someone has an acute episode and then goes out and kills, and if they kills someone and lack appreciating the criminality of the crime -Efforts to avoid detection after the crime can suggest that there was planning
O' Connor v. Donaldson
-O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975), the United States Supreme Court concluded that a person not only had to be mentally ill but also dangerous before he could be civilly committed -This decision had profound scope of practice implications (risk assessment) -The intent of these legal changes was to reduce the number of people hospitalized. -Rates of those institutionalized dramatically increased over time -These additional protections also seemed to signal a swing from parens patriae to police power -the focus has moved away from the presence of a mental illness and the informal authority of mental health professionals toward the more legalistic focus on dangerousness
Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act
-Passed in 1969 -Purpose: to end the inappropriate ndefinite and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, developmentally disabled, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and ensure prompt evaluation, to guarantee and protect public safety, safeguard individual rights through judicial review -Purpose was to get rid of the arbitrariness of who gets committed -Give a set of rights to the patients and strike a balance -Balance: were gonna lock u up for a while for your own good, but its gonna be short -Were gonna take away some of your freedom, but it wont be for a long time -WIC = welfare and institutions code (civil law)
Gravely (GD) Criteria Definition
-Passive danger is called gravely disabled or grave disability -Gravely disabled: A condition in which a person, as a result of a mental disorder (rather than a chosen life style or lack of funds) is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter
Pedophilic Disorder
-Pedos = child, philic = attraction to -DSM5 Criteria: -Over at least a 6 month period, recurrent, intense, and occurring sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving sexual contact with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 or younger) -Person has acted on these sexual urges, or they cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty -Its possible for one to have sexual attraction to a child, but not act on them meaning that they are a pedophile but do not have pedophilic disorder -Simply having urges or fantasies about young kids isnt a crime, it just tells you what they are attracted to, but if they act on it then it is a crime -Person is at least 16 years old and 5 years older than child -Note: do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.
People vs. Triplett (1983)
-Police were called to apartment building, tripplet came walking down stairs crying and bloody, looked like she tried to slit wrists, found lsd in her purse, she was 5150 bc of suicide attempt, but also convicted to possession or narcotics, appealed and said police didn't have right to search her purse, he said I had probably cause, well what is that, court decided: -To constitute probable cause to detain a person pursuant to section 5150, a state of facts must be known to the peace officer that would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to believe, or to entertain a strong suspicion, that the person detained is mentally disordered and is a danger to himself or herself or is gravely disabled. In justifying the particular intrusion, the officer must be able to point to specific and articulable fact, which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant his or her belief or suspicion -An officer has to be able to point to specific facts that reasonably warrant a belief -Court said her symptoms w this suicide attempt would lead anyone to believe that she was a danger to herself -Held: probable cause is a lay (police officer/reasonable person) decision, not a clinical one -This decision can be made by a police office
Relevant classes of mental disorders
-Psychotic disorders (e.g., schizophrenia) -Delusions and hallucinations could inhibit the ability to understand or appreciate the situation -Trauma and stressor-related disorders (e.g., PTSD) -Extreme apprehension or re-experiencing traumatic events or hyper arousal could lead one to misunderstand the situation -Ex. Woman that was raped by two men wearing fedoras, she had a re-experience when seeing a man wearing a fedora and she shot him and claimed not guilty based on this idea of misunderstanding the situation -If she didn't have the PTSD she wouldn't have seen him as a threat and wouldn't have shot him -Mood disorders (e.g., Bipolar); paraphilias (e.g., pedophilia) -Might appreciate the wrongfulness of the act but not be able to resist -Child molestars know that what they are doing is wrong but they cant resist and do it anyway
Static-99R
-Required to administer this instrument -10 factors: -First factor is age at release -If from 18-34.9 = 1p, 35-39 = 0p, 40-59= -1p, 60+=-2p -Ever lived with the lover for at least 2 years? -Yes = 0 points, no = 1 point -For your current offense (index) was there any violence involved? -Do you have any convictions for non sexual violence prior to this current offense -Whats your prior sex offenses -Two ways to look at it: Number of charges vs. number of convictions -Prior sentencing dates (how many times have you been sentenced not have many crimes you've been convicted of) -Any convictions for non-contact sex offenses -Ex. Child porn -Any unrelated victims? -Some type of acquaintance (Ex. Neighbor) -Any stranger victims? -Any male victims? -Increase risk if you have a male victim -low= -3 - 1, low-moderate= 2-3, moderate-high= 4-5, high=6+
Assessment Techniques of competency
-Screening instruments -Very few evaluators use these -The competency screening test -22 item sentence completion: -"when I go to court my lawyers will ___?" -Hopefully they say something like help more or defend me (not something like try to murder me) -"Jack felt that the judge ___?" -Theres a lot of subjectivity on what constitutes a good or bad response -Responses rated on a 0-2 scale -Threshold = 20; those below are screened in (Those who have a score of 20 or lower are incompetent) -Problems: -High false positive rate -Calling someone incompetent when they are not (This is better than false negative errors) -Biased against people with poor literacy -Also difficult for people in which english is not their first language -Ex. Them asking "whos jack" to the above example question -Unstructured interview -Most commonly used method -No a priori set of questions -Not a checklist of items that you score, look over file before, and come up with ur own questions -Tend to focus on ability to learn vs. ability to know -Are they capable of being trained (who the judge is, who the defense attorney is and what their role is) -Problem: -More likely to have poor reliability bc not structured -Interrater reliability: if different people read it, will they come to the same conclusion -Interrater reliability is increased when we have a structured protocol -Decent (?) levels of reliability -In hawaii, there are 3 different evaluators assesses competency for each defendant -Kappa = .71 (good reliability, 1.0 being perfect) -Judges agreed w/ majority 77% of the time -Judges erred on the side of caution -To the extent that the judges don't go along w it, they are siding on caution (speculating that the defendant actually is incompetent and needs treatment [restoration]) -State judges can be voted out of their job if they make a stupid decision bc they get hired by ballot so if you make public mad with bad decision it can be politically bad for them
Sexual-related disorders
-Sexual dysfunctions -Premature ejactulation, hyperactive sexual desire, etc. -Paraphilic disorders -Paraphilia tells you what they are attracted to -Para = deviation, philic (attraction to) -Attraction to odd/strange things A) Exhibitionism (exposes self to others), fetishism (arousal from inanimate objects), sexual masochism, sexual sadism, voyeurism, transvestic fetishism, frotteurism -Tells you what the guy is attracted to and how often they act on that desire is related to libido (sex drive) B) Behaviors/fantasies/urges must last for 6 months AND must cause impairment or distress -Need both criteria A & B for diagnosis of paraphilic disorder -Ex. If you're attracted to young children but it doesn't cause you impairment or distress or hasn't be continual for at least 6 months then you would be said to have pedophilia opposed to pedaphilic disorder
Important things to remember about the insanity tests
-They vary by jurisdiction -All tests refer to mental state at the time of the offense -What was happening at the time the person committed the offense -At the time of trial they tend to look normal but this is because they are receiving medication which can make it hard to understand -Insanity has 3 components: 1)Mental disorder? 2)Did the disorder impair the defendant at the time of the offense? 3)Is it the right type of impairment? -If the answer is no on any of the 3 components then the analysis stops and the person is not found insane
The case of Tom W.
-Tom W. is due to be released from CA State prison in June 2020 after serving 8 years for molesting his 10-year-old stepbrother during a family vacation. He has one previous conviction for possession of child pornography. He is 36 years old, and used to live with his wife -Is tom "likely" to reoffend? How likely? If I had 100 toms and I put them back in the community, how many of them would commit a sex offense in the next 5 years? -Intrafamilial child molesters are less likely to reoffend than extrafamilial child molesters
Wyatt v. Stickney (1972)
-Ultimately, the courts determined patients had a right to treatment that would give them a realistic opportunity to improve their mental condition -Wyatt had been institutionalized, despite the lack of a mental illness, simply because he was identified as a juvenile delinquent.The suit charged that the conditions were horrible and treatment was only used to manage the behavior of the patients.
Why competency matters
-We have an adversarial system in which two sides compete and theres a winner -The constitution is the ultimate legal authority has precedent above everything else (1) Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. -Thought to enforce due process (the process you are due/owed before the state can deprive you of your freedom/liberty [lock u up]) -Speedy trial = 45 days -Competency matters because you have certain aspects of the trial and if you're unable to take advantage of those rights because of incompetency, then your rights are being disrespected (2) Society's interest in a dignified process -We don't allow trials inabsentially -The defendant has to be present at a trial to be convicted -Its not the fact that you weren't physically there, but you weren't mentally there and were unable to assist your attorneys
5150: 72 hold
-When any person, as a result of a mental disorder is a danger to others, or to himself, or gravely disabled, an authorized person may upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72 hour evaluation -This is sometimes called an emergency emission -While you're there you don't have a legal right to contest the hold or a right to legal counsel
The case of Mr. Hedges (kidnapping to facilitate a felony and attempted sexual battery)
-Wisconsin uses ALI test -Long history of extreme 'ups' (distracted thoughts, lack of sleep, talkative) & 'downs' (feels sad and empty, lethargic, thoughts of suicide) -Pursued co worker for 2 years; she rebuffed and yelled in front of everyone that she will never go out with him -He quit his job, spent all of his money at strip club, spotted the girl -During an 'up' he saw her at a gas station, grabbed her and threw her in his truck in front of witnesses -Police apprehended him attempting to rape her -"Hell, i know its wrong to rape. But she wanted it. It was the way she looked at me. She wanted me bad" -Need to look for: -Mental disorder -Seems to be bipolar disorder without psychosis -Did it cause a type of impairment and what type of impairment? (ALI is cognitive and volitional impairment) -Cognitive impairment: (does he appreciate the criminality of his behavior) -Yes he admits that he knows raping is wrong -Volitional impairment: (is he able to control himself) -Theres evidence he couldn't control himself because there was no foresight about going to the gas station on this night bc she'll be there and he did this in front of a bunch of witnesses -Counterargument: why did he take her and drive her around the corner
civil commitment for substance use
-death due to overdose and lack of seeking help causes states to turn to civil commitment -dont have to wait til things get too bad (arrests) -mixed results on effectiveness -harms: risk of overdose when released & ruin trust of family and doctors, ruins employment, social functioning
Criminal responsibility in multiple personality disorder (article)
-defect in actus reus = involuntary -defect in mens rea = insanity -no standard to assess involuntary acts (list of acts that are involuntary are when you're unconscious) -state v Grimsley -DUI, second personality in control at time of offense -alter in control approach: which consciousness she is in doesn't matter as long as the personality she was in was conscious and free willingly doing those actions -each alter approach: have to test competency of each alter, whether they were able to make a thoughtful moral decision and consider the law -if one is found innocent and other is guilty what does this mean for punishment? -host approach: is the host of dominant personality able to appreciate the nature & quality or wrongfulness of which the alters controlled? -Saks: alter personalities are different individuals and a single innocent alter out-weighs the guilt of many, she thinks MPD can't form true mens rea -Behnke: alters aren't people only a person can form and act upon a criminal intent, courts should assess the mental state of the person and the quality of their act at the time of the crime, -alters are mental states, they are aspects of the person that have been split but its still the person -U.S. v. Denny Shaffer: kidnapped baby, went across state, claimed he was hers -two personalities were in control of actions others were unaware -saks would say she's not responsible and behnke would assess whether or not when in the mental states of the two personalities she met the relevant test for insanity -planning and hiding of baby suggests it was voluntary -owens says assess the general hosts mens rea
Sell v. United States (2003)
-held that a defendant who was hospitalized after being found incompetent to stand trial may be involuntarily medicated in some circumstances -Supreme Court said: ultimately concluded that the government can involuntarily medicate a defendant if the treatment is medically appropriate and is unlikely to have side effects that reduce the fairness of the trial, if less intrusive methods are considered, and if it is important to governmental interests
inpatient care from hospitals to jails
-mentally ill getting locked up: less inpatient beds, lack of access to treatment, bad interactions w cops, more strict civil commitment criteria -cops arrest bc don't know dealing w mentally ill person or bc lack of hospital beds, waiting periods, etc -gives the criminal record that makes it more likely they will be rearrested instead of in health system -"offender" label influences court decisions more than mental illness -concern that using CJS to get rid of difficult to manage ill people in need of treatment -jails expanding, improving, specializing due to increased need -mental health courts to take their illness into consideration w/ crime and treat them to avoid recidivism
sexual sadism article
-no evidence that they can reliably differentiate SVPs from other recidivists who may be sexually dangerous but lack mental abnormality -NOS enables forensic psychologists to incorrectly get people committed for their crimes instead of mental illnesses -evaluators use sexual sadism for rapists bc they don't get that its only if the infliction of pain has the goal of sexual arousal and its not just a byproduct of the act of rape -sexual sadists are playful and emotionally detached, torture and humiliate victims, intrusive sexual acts -they fantasize and rehearse before acting -often are depressed or angry before acting (lose self control) -rates of sadism are low -they are unlikely to be SVP petitions because they serve long terms for their violent crimes -not a lot of agreement among evaluators on diagnosing because its subjective since they have to determine motivations and arousal -should use the old DSm w/ sadist evaluation because DSM5 is bad at differentiating rapists from sadists
pedophila article
-pedophilic disorder = acted on fantasies -pedophilc sexual orientation helps distinguish pedophilia from child molestation -DSM5 says using kid porn is an indicator of the disorder -using this as an indicator can cause one to get the diagnosis and then be treated inaccurately bc it was mainly decided from porn usage -statistically seems that using kid porn doesn't correlate with hands on sexual offenses -investigations showed that those who used kid porn didn't act on it -shouldnt diagnose them w the disorder w/o them acting on it -could instead diagnose them using Other specified paraphilia disorder w emphasis on only using kid porn -they can fantasize w/o ever acting on their sexual desires -APA wants to remove "pedophilia" from DSM5 because the fantasies alone can't be punished or legislated away but they still want treatment for them to avoid kid sexual abuse -APA doesn't think it should be thought of as a sexual orientation -pedophilic disorder doesn't equal molestation -US SC said its okay to involuntarily commit ppl diagnosed with pedophilic disorder because they have a lack of control -behaviors enacted by persons with a pedophilic disorder are energized by a powerful biological force (sex drive) so resisting this can be hard and distressing -many pedophiles don't seek treatment bc of the stigma and rejection they will receive from society -also scared to get into legal trouble -sexual abuse victims are an indicator but not necessary
insanity myths
-the belief that the standard of insanity makes a significant difference in the rate of acquittals -its actually barely raised & rarely results in acquittal -misconception that insanity acquittees are not severely mentally ill -misconception that most insanity acquittals are charged with murder -only 14%, more likely for violent crime -the disposition of acquittals (free to go) -they are actually usually immediately admitted to a hospital for LONG periods of time
malingering article
-the way people fake their symptoms has remained consistent over time -use of structured instruments to assess malingering is new (used to use clinical methods w/ low reliability) -test of memory malingering (looks for ppl getting answers wrong on purpose) -some tests look for exaggerated symptoms or inconsistencies of them -criticism: people can have mental illnesses and still b exaggerating -misinterpretations and misclassifications can have serious consequences for the defendant -Romon Chavez: -did 2 drive by shootings w/o looking at them, ran and shot couple looking scared/angry, robbed drive thru, found in attic in fetal position unresponsive to verbal commands or pain compliance techniques -schizo, refused to work w attorney, used to function normally, 6 months b4 crimes his functioning declined (paranoid, confused w/ simple convos) -in jail his meds helped regain functioning and gave responses claiming hallucinations and paranoid delusions during time of offense -found incompetent to stand trial and hospitalized for restoration, didn't believe he was faking (actually had psychotic disorder) but was exaggerating symptoms to get more drugs of stay in hospital longer -hospital witness claimed inconsistency of symptoms reported on test vs. staff (jury believed he was faking and convicted) -should be careful labeling ppl as antisocial bc it makes people think they are more likely faking
Characteristics of pedophiles
-~50% start their illegal behavior in early teens -Commonly intra-familial molesters (~80%) & predominately male (~95%) -More common to victimize a child in the family (kid, step kid, girlfriends kid, nephew, etc.) -Violence is rarely use -Tend to not want to harm the child while they do it, instead they use grooming techniques (adult in power, develop a bond with them, give them gifts etc, the kid gets confused of whats actually happening, and they tell the kid this Is something special between us don't tell anybody if you don't want me to get hurt) -Leads to cognitive distortions: -"I didn't force myself on him"; "he was dressed suggestively" -Because they aren't using violence, aren't hurting the child, because the kid appears to like the adult, they tend to believe that it was consensual even tho the kid doesn't even understand that -Proposed distinction between pedophiles and child rapists -Alcohol is commonly associated with the behavior -Its not that they do it bc they're drunk or they have to be drunk to do it -They have these urges constantly and get stressed out which when they're stressed out they are more likely to drink alcohol and more likely to act on these desires -Two separate things that happen to correlated not causal
Brief history of Civil Commitment
Ancient times -In middle 1800s they built hospitals that were designed to accommodate mentally ill people but the only way to get in to them was involuntary treatment (until the 1960s) -Once civilly committed you gave up a lot of rights -Where you were allowed to live, control of your own finances, allowed to own gun, cant vote, whether you're allowed to marry someone -In late 1960s-early 1970s; -Movement to drive down hospitalization and shift people out of hospitals -Hospitals packed and expensive -In CA, prior to 1970- lax and vague commitment standards -Criminals had more due process rights than mental health patients before shift in 70s -People realized that this was unfair so cali tried to make sure that these individuals had some rights -Once you were hospitalized prior to the 1970s you had no rights -No visitation, forced medication
Lessard v. Schmidt (1972)
Commitment proceedings must include the same procedural safeguards as criminal proceedings such as a notice of the impending civil commitment procedures and the right to counsel
Danger to others (DTO) Criteria Definition
Danger to others (DTO): -Can be manifested by words or actions indicating a serious intent to cause bodily harm due to a mental disorder. If the dangerousness to others finding is based on the person's threats rather than acts, the evaluator must believe it is likely that the person will carry out the threats. -Bodily harm due to a mental disorder, not emotional harm -Difficult to assess bc don't have time or records to do actuarial risk assessment -Is there a risk right now?
Danger to self (DTS) Criteria Definition
Danger to self (DTS): -Can be manifested by threats or actions indicating the intent to commit suicide or inflict serious bodily harm on oneself, or actions which place the person in serious physical jeopardy, if these actions are due to a mental disorder. -Is there a risk right now? -Usually see w this suicide attempts or some type of mutilation
Competency to stand trial
Dusky v. US (1960) -The person has to have a"...sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."
Competency to stand trial (mental disorder)
Dusky v. US (1960) -The person has to have a"...sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." -What the role of mental disorder? -Competency differs from insanity -Insanity at time of offense, competence is present time -Insanity requires mental disorder, competency does not
Sexual Masochism & Sadism: DSM5 Criteria
Masochism: A) Over at least a 6 month period, recurrent and intense sexual arousal from the act of being humiliate, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors B) Causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social or occupation functioning Sadism: A) Over at least a 6 month period, recurrent and intense sexual arousal from the physical or psychological suffering of another person, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors B) The person has acted on these urges with a non-consenting partner or the sexual urges or the fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social or occupational functioning
Elements of a crime
Necessary elements of a crime: -Actus reus -In order to be convicted of a crime you have to be able to prove that you did the act -Mens rea (guilty mind) -Theres different levels of mens rea -Difference between killing someone when caught cheated is maybe not as bad as killing someone premeditatedly -In all cases there is the evil act (actus reus) but you need to know about the persons guilty mind -An insanity claim is saying that they committed the act but didn't have the mens rea part so they shouldn't be convicted of the crime -2 groups that generally lack mens rea: -Children (under age 7 and sometimes 7-14) -Severely mentally disordered -Individuals who have an IQ that's equivalent to a 7yo or less -If convicted, go to prison; if found not guilty, go home; if found not guilty by reason of insanity, go to hospital until you are found that you are no longer mentally ill or dangerous
Lake v. Cameron (1966)
Required that treatment should be in the least restrictive setting
Addington v.Texas (1979)
The standard of proof in civil commitment proceedings is clear and convincing evidence
Insanity Calculus
To be found not guilty by reason of insanity require 3 findings: -Suffers from a mental disorder at the time of the offense -Case law holds that psychopathy (antisocial personality disorder) and voluntary intoxication don't qualify as mental disorders in the context of an insanity claim -The criminal act was 'caused' by the mental disorder ("but for") -Cant just say I have schizo so I killed him, but it has to be that the disorder caused the behavior -The link between the disorder and the behavior must be of a specific type prescribed in the legal test -The disorder has to cause a specific type of impairment -One type of impairment may not be relevant in one state even tho it is in another -Did it cause the correct type of impairment?
Restoration to Competency
What if restoration is impossible? -Jackson vs. Indiana (1972) -Stole 2 purses, IQ of preschool child, deaf mute -Arrested, supreme court said that you cant hold jackson indefinitely (to restore competency) because there is no hope for him to restore it -Length of treatment cannot exceed that of the potential prison sentence -Cant hold someone in treatment for 4 years when they were held in prison for 3 years -Most states limit the period to 3 years -Outcomes: charges dropped; case dismissed w/o prejudice (recharge you down the road w/o fear of double jeopardy); petition for civil commitment (put in hospital for treatment against their will) -Restoration time counts as time served if eventually convicted -Ex. Defendant is arrested and found incompetent and it takes a year for competency to be restored, they trial resume and is convicted and sentenced to 5 years... that one year in the hospital goes to their sentence -A lot of people that know they're going to be convicted will try to spend more time in the mental hospital than in prison because they know that their time there will count towards their sentence and its nice in there
Zinermon v. Burch (1990)
the Court ruled that individuals who are seriously mentally ill are not able to consent to a voluntary admission and therefore must be involuntarily committed
