91172.pdf

122 5 Court and the Legal System—Adult Forensics

question ot'Jenne's competency to stand trial. In other words, is Jenne mentally capable

of being a defendant in the criminal process? If so, what other competency issues might

arise? And, if not, what will happen to Jenne?

Literature Review

Stone (1975) referred to Competency to Stand Trial (CST) as "the most significant
mental health inquiry pursued in the system of criminal law" (p. 200). Perhaps one
reason for the significance of competency applied in this context is the large num-
ber of persons found incompetent every year. A study conducted by H. Steadman,
Monahan, Hartstone, Davis, and Robbins (1982) found that in the United States
in 1978, approximately 25,000 CST evaluations resulted in over 6,000 individuals
found incompetent to stand trial. Thus, the sheer number of individuals facing com-
petency evaluations leaves competency to stand trial as one of the most significant
issues confronted in the fields of law, psychology, and forensic psychology.
The legal definition of competency to stand trial was put forth by the Supreme
Court in Dusky v. United States (1960). The Dusky standard requires the individual to
have (1) "sufficient present ability to consult with a lawyer with a reasonable degree
of rational understanding" and (2) "rational as well as factual understanding" of the
general proceedings (Dusky v. United States, 1960, p. 402). Though competency
standards vary somewhat from state to state, nearly every state has adopted some
variation of Dusky (Grisso, 1996a).
Thus, the contemporary concept of CST concerns not only the presence of
mental illness, but also the individual's ability to function as a defendant in light
of the effects of his or her mental illness. The primary concern, then, is whether
the mentally ill defendant is capable of fulfilling his or her role as a defendant. The
knowledge and ability to do those things required by the court before and during
the trial process are of primary importance (L. Wrightsrnan et ai, 1994).
Competency to stand trial must be differentiated from the standard of insanity.
Competency refers only to a defendant's present ability to function. For example, an
individual may have been legally insane at the time he or she committed a crime, but
perfectly competent to stand trial and be sentenced. Likewise, an individual who
was legally sane during the commission of a crime may not be competent several
months later when he or she faces criminal trial. Thus, insanity and competence are
entirely different legal constructs and, though often confused, must be considered
as such.
One important distinction between the two concerns treatment of those found
insane or incompetent. Typically, the defendant found insane [i.e., Not Guilty by
Reason of Insanity (NGRI) or Guilty But Mentally 111 (GBMI)] faces a sentence in
a placement where psychiatric care is available. The NGRI individual may spend a
life sentence in a psychiatric hospital. The incompetent to stand trial individual, on
the other hand, has not been tried, convicted, or sentenced for any wrongdoing.