why he or she is being sentenced). Other jurisdictions
hold that sentencing is part of the trial, therefore the
defendant must meet the more exacting Dusky stan-
dard before he or she may be sentenced. Overall, the
literature suggests that the competency to be sen-
tenced standard is less stringent than the competence
to stand trial standard.
The purposes behind the guarantee of competency
to be sentenced are generally argued to be threefold.
First, defendants are guaranteed competency to pro-
tect their individual rights. For example, in some
cases, the defendant has the right to allocution at sen-
tencing. The right of allocution refers to a defendant’s
right to speak before the sentence is pronounced in
order to address any legal cause why the sentence
should not be pronounced or provide mitigating
information that may reduce the sentence. Without
the mental ability to participate in the proceedings,
this right would be meaningless. Second, society has
an interest in guaranteeing fair results and the dignity
of the trial process. If a defendant does not appear to
be a lucid participant in his or her trial and sentenc-
ing, the process loses these qualities. Third, to be
competent to be sentenced, defendants should com-
prehend the duration and severity of the sentence.
This understanding is a prerequisite for the sentence
to meet its goals of punishment and deterrence from
future crime. If defendants cannot rationally compre-
hend the reason why they have been sentenced, the
punishment cannot have its desired effect on the psy-
che or act as a deterrent.
If a genuine doubt concerning the defendant’s
competency to be sentenced arises, the defense, the
prosecution, or the judge may raise the issue. If there
is sufficient evidence that the defendant’s competency
is questionable, the judge may order an examination
by a mental health professional, such as a psycholo-
gist or a psychiatrist. When the evaluation is com-
pleted, the expert provides an opinion to the court in
the form of a report and, possibly, testimony. The
judge makes a decision regarding the competency of
the defendant. If the defendant is found to be compe-
tent, the sentencing proceeds. If the defendant is
found to be not competent, he or she is sent for treat-
ment to restore competency before sentencing.
Psychologists have researched the issue of compe-
tency to stand trial, developed assessment strategies,
and implemented treatment approaches to restore indi-
viduals’ overall competence. The defendant’s cognitive
functioning is of central importance in evaluating anyform of competence. Similarly, a defendant’s ability to
communicate mitigating factors effectively to his or
her attorney is essential. Many measures have aided in
the evaluation of an individual’s overall competency.
These include the Competency Screening Test (CST),
the Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI), the
Georgia Court Competency Test (GCCT–MSH), the
Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI), the Fitness
Interview Test (FIT–R), the MacArthur Competence
Assessment Tool–Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT–
CA), and the Evaluation of Competence to Stand
Trial–Revised (ECST–R). These measures provide a
clinician with information relevant to an individual’s
competence to stand trial; however, there are minimal
assessment guidelines and no accepted measures to
evaluate competence to be sentenced. A comprehen-
sive evaluation should be conducted to assess a defen-
dant’s intellect, his or her personality, and any
underlying psychopathology, in addition to the basic
competency criteria. As mentioned above, if a defen-
dant is found not competent to be sentenced, the ques-
tion of possible restoration to competence must be
dealt with. Restoration to competence may achieved
by the use of psycho-education, medication, or indi-
vidual therapy.
Individuals with mental retardation or metal ill-
ness, juveniles, and people suffering from dementia
are at higher risk of being found incompetent to be
sentenced. These groups are identified as “at risk” due
to limitations in rational understanding and abstract
thinking. By definition, individuals with mental retar-
dation have below-average intellectual abilities and
impaired adaptive behavior, which affect all aspects of
competency. Juveniles are labeled at risk because they
are considered developmentally and psychosocially
immature. Children typically develop higher-order
processing and reasoning abilities as they mature.
Although there is no exact age at which children
develop this reasoning ability, the idea that juvenile
offenders should be treated differently from adult
offenders has long been an accepted legal premise.
Research has focused on determining whether a juve-
nile possesses the minimal reasoning ability required
to be found legally competent. The findings indicate
that juveniles who lack developmental and psychoso-
cial maturity (a) may not fully appreciate the long-
term consequences of their decisions, (b) may yield to
peer influence, and (c) may minimize the ramifica-
tions and risk of being found guilty. These limitations
would lead to impaired decision making. People withCompetency to Be Sentenced——— 117C-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 117