Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

score of 5 relates to no impairment, or adequate

capacity to function. A score of 6 is given when there

is insufficient information to score the respective item.

The item scores are neither weighted nor summed, but

rather are intended to stand alone and assist the eval-

uator in the formation of his or her subsequent report

and potential testimony. The authors of the CAI

explicitly set forth the caveat that the CAI is not meant

to serve as a predictor of future trial-related abilities,

since scores on the instrument may fluctuate over

time. The scoring process functions under the assump-

tions that the defendant will be afforded adequate

counsel and the forensic examiner using the CAI pos-

sesses a fundamental understanding of the realities of

the criminal justice system.

Little is known about the psychometric properties

of the CAI. The scoring of the CAI is not standardized,

and there are no norms available for the instrument.

Interrater reliability coefficients for the instrument

have been found to range from .84 to .97 among expe-

rienced raters and from .43 to .96 among inexperi-

enced raters. The CAI has been found to correlate with

other instruments intended to measure the same abili-

ties as the CAI (i.e., the Competence Screening

Test and Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview), lending

exiguous evidence in support of its construct validity.

Research on the utility of the CAI as a classification or

predictive tool is scant as well, but the research that

was conducted found that many evaluators used the

CAI as a conceptual tool—forgoing the quantification

of the items.

Controversies that surrounded the CAI on its pub-

lication regarded biases that may be inherent in the

scoring of the instrument. Specifically, bias against

individuals who do not have confidence in the crimi-

nal adjudication process or bias as a result of an

evaluator’s assumptions about the dynamics of the cir-

cumstances surrounding a trial and attorney perfor-

mances have been cited. Rebuttal of these criticisms

has referred to the fact that the authors have clearly

indicated that the scoring of the CAI operates under

the presumptions of adequate legal counsel and a trial

characterized by a legal standard of fairness. Although

the CAI does not include a methodical evaluation of

the defendant’s specific trial circumstances, three items

(Items 1, 4, and 9) evaluate the defendant’s capacities

or perceptions regarding his or her circumstances.

However, the CAI manual does not provide any guide-

lines for characterizing the trial circumstances. The

major contribution of the CAI was the delineation of

13 legally pertinent concepts and functional areas, a

contribution that continues to influence the develop-

ment of instruments created to evaluate defendants’

competence to stand trial.

Gianni Pirelli and Patricia A. Zapf

See also Competency Screening Test (CST); Competency to

Stand Trial; Forensic Assessment; Interdisciplinary Fitness

Interview (IFI)

Further Readings

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).

Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic

assessments and instruments. New York: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum.

Harvard Medical School, Laboratory of Community

Psychiatry. (1973). Competence to stand trial and mental

illness(DHEW Publication No. [ADM] 77-103).

Rockville, MD: NIMH, Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare.

COMPETENCY FOREXECUTION

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution pro-

hibits cruel and unusual punishment, which, accord-

ing to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Fo rd v.

Wainwright (1986), includes the execution of the

insane. Thus, it is unconstitutional to execute con-

demned inmates who become incompetent while on

death row while they remain in an incompetent state.

Statutes set forth by those states that permit the death

penalty often do not include specific guidelines for

evaluating competency for execution, and when

guidelines do exist, they vary widely. When the issue

of an inmate’s competency for execution arises, men-

tal health professionals are called on to assist the court

in the evaluation of competency for execution and for

restoring competency in those found incompetent.

Given the nature of the consequences involved, these

practices often present ethical challenges and are con-

troversial in nature.

Competency for execution, called by some com-

mentators the “last competency” for its temporal

proximity to the final resolution of an inmate’s legal

proceedings, is raised as an issue far less often than

competency to stand trial but is no less important.

The legal system in the United States and many other

112 ———Competency for Execution

C-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 112