124 ") Court and the Legal System—Adult Foremics
without: ever being found guilty of anything. The incompetent defendant not only
faces the loss of liberty that may eventually follow a guilty verdict, but is also
subjected to the loss of freedom, liberty, and sometimes the questionable conditions
of the facility where he or she is confined. The very practice of confining the
incompetent before they have been convicted raises important policy questions.
Another of the more significant developments concerning competency and pol-
icy is that of involuntary medication to restore competency. Often, an individual's
competency may be restored following the administration of psychotropic med-
ications. Questions then arise as to whether there is a justified basis for forcing
medications on defendants in an effort to restore competency. The issue of right
to refuse treatment for both prisoners and civilly committed individuals is explored
more fully in other sections of this book.
Suggestions for Future Research
Perhaps the most controversial issue with regard to competency issues is exactly
what constitutes a competent individual. Though cases such as Dusky v. United
States (1960) shed light on the question, no distinct and specific conclusion has been
reached by any court of law. This topic continues to receive substantial attention
in both legal and social science literature. Given the inherent difference between
individuals, forensic psychologists must consider whether it is even possible to adopt
a specific standard of competency.
Another area in need of future consideration concerns involuntary confinement
of incompetent individuals. Many jurisdictions continue to allow for the automatic
confinement of such persons (Melton et al., 1987). Several proposals have been
made to place limitations on the conditions under which this commitment should
occur. Further, though the Court's decision in Jackson v. Indiana (1972) forbade un-
limited confinement, it failed to define "reasonable period of time" and "substantial
probability" (pp. 737—738). Thus, the Court has assumed some responsibility for
the treatment of incompetent defendants. It has not, however, adequately resolved
the issues with consideration of the best interest of the individual and the State.
JURY SELECTION
Introduction
The selection of jury members is one of the most important aspects of any given
trial. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that "in all criminal prosecutions, the ac-
cused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury." How-
then is an impartial jury selected? The last several decades have generated a sub-
stantial amount of criticism as to whether a jury can in fact be impartial. Many
