Assessing Criminal Competence

Due process of law demands that defendants charged with a crime must be competent at all stages of the criminal proceedings against them, including during sentencing. The Supreme Court has defined competence as the defendant’s current understanding of the nature of the charges and the case against them, as well his being able to assist their attorney in their own defense. The law presumes that a defendant is competent; the burden is on the defendant to prove lack of competence. Debate is ongoing as to what competence truly means, and both lawyers and psychologists are involved in research efforts to clearly identify a criminal’s competence.

After reading the executive summary of “The MacArthur Adjudicative Competence Study,” consider the question(s) below. Then “submit” your response.

Question 1

According to the article how many forensic evaluations of criminal defendants for "competence to stand trial" occur each year?

A.
B.
C.
D.

Question 2

Participants for the full-scale adjudicative competence study came from what two states?

A.
B.
C.
D.

Participants for the full-scale adjudicative competence study came from what two states?

Question 3

Defense Attorneys perceive approximately ______ percent of criminal defendants to have impaired competence

A.
B.
C.
D.

Question 4

What clinical diagnoses are most associated with adjudicative incompetence?

One possible answer might be schizophrenia and other severe mental disorders.

Question 5

Why is it important to have an assessment instrument capable of assessing competence?

One possible answer might be that it would help standardize evaluations and reduce subjectivity when determining an individual’s competence to stand trial.