Competency to Stand Trial 123He or she is simply treated in an effort to restore his or her ability (if possible) to
understand the proceedings and assist his or her counsel in the trial.
How long can an incompetent individual be held in a psychiatric facility? The
Supreme Court attempted to answer this very question in Jackson v. Indiana (1972).
Prior to Jackson, it was not uncommon for incompetent defendants to be confined
to psychiatric facilities for unlimited periods of time. At times, this period exceeded
the sentence the individual would have faced if tried and convicted. Thus, it was not
uncommon for the prosecution to raise questions concerning competency to essen-
tially sentence an individual without the time and effort of a trial (L. Wrightsman
etal., 1994).
The Court's decision in Jackson placed limits on the amount of time an individual
who was found Incompetent to Stand Trial (1ST) could be confined. Thus, the time
afforded to the state to treat defendants and. restore their competence was subject
to limitations. The proposed limits were defined as "... a reasonable period of time
necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that [the defendant]
will attain the capacity [competence] in the foreseeable future" (Jackson v. Indiana,
1972, pp. 737—738). The defendant found 1ST is not subjected to the trial process.
He or she is generally placed in a psychiatric facility and treated until competency
has been sufficiently restored. The Jackson decision, however, was the first Supreme
Court case to place legal limits, though imprecise and not well defined, on the
commitment of such individuals.Forensic Psychology and Policy Implication
The implications of competency issues and developments for the forensic psy-
chologist are profound. Research in the area has shown that the expert opin-
ions of psychologists on the issue of competency are highly valued. It is uncom-
mon tor a judge to disagree with a mental health professional's recommendation
(Nicholson & Kugler, 1991). Thus, the role of the practicing forensic psychologist
is one that assists in defining the future of the defendant whose competency is in
question. ForJenne in our case illustration, the opinion of the psychologist con-
ducting the competency evaluation may determine whether she must face the trial
process in her present state or be committed for treatment to possibly restore her
to a level of functioning that may enhance her ability to assist in her own defense.
For example, if it is determined that Jenne is competent to stand trial when she is
in fact incompetent, the ensuing trial may be contaminated and unjust. The reverse,
however, is also true. If Jenne is judged to be incompetent when she is capable of
standing trial, the public may regard her as "getting off easy" and not receiving due
punishment if she were found guilty.
Perhaps even more significant, however, is the very issue of incompetence and
the treatment of individuals such as Jenne. One who has been found incompetent
to stand trial, for example, is deprived of liberty by being involuntarily confined.