PSYC 2400: Fitness to Stand Trial and Criminal Responsibility

Contents

1. 1. Fitness to Stand Trial
   1. 1.1 Assessment Instruments
   2. 1.2 Treatment Issues
   3. 1.3 Example: Ted Kaczynski - Unabomber
   4. 1.4 After You're Found Unfit
2. 2. Criminal Responsibility
   1. 2.1 Assessment of Responsibility
   2. 2.2 Treatment Issues
   3. 2.3 Example – Jeffry Dahmer
   4. 2.4 True or False?

Please Note: This lecture contains a summary of the book mixed in with what was discussed in the lecture.

Fitness to Stand Trial or Criminal Responsibility (Insanity) only happens in certain cases – lawyers will be the ones to suggest these to the judge.

1. Fitness to Stand Trial

Definitions of Fitness: an assessment of the current mental condition of the accused. In order to be found guilty, prosecutors must establish actus Reus (a wrongful deed) and mens rea (criminal intent).

Goal: to determine whether it interferes with your ability to perform legal tasks.

• R v Pritchard: to determine whether you currently suffer from a deficit:
  • Can you assist in their defence?
  • Do you understand their role in the proceedings?
  • Do you understand the nature of the proceedings?
• Section 2 of Criminal Code: where a person is not fit because they…
  • Don’t understand the nature of the proceedings…
  • Don’t understand the consequences of the proceedings…
  • Can’t communicate with counsel…
• Because of a current mental disorder.

To be found unfit, you must suffer from a mental disorder of some kind but having a mental disorder does not automatically make you unfit to stand trial (ex. depression wouldn’t make you unfit).

1.2 Assessment Instruments

Assessment Instruments: if fit, the trial will continue; if unfit, a formal assessment will take place (this can take between 5 to 30 days) and will typically be conducted by a psychiatrist (except in Canada, where you have to be a medical practitioner but a psychologist can assist). Two common procedures to test fitness:

1. FIT-R (Fitness Interview Test Revised): (Canada) a semi-structured interview to determine if you suffer from a mental disorder.
   • It assesses 3 psychological abilities:
     • Understanding of proceedings (i.e. factual knowledge about the proceedings like the severity of the charges)
     • Understanding of consequences (i.e. appreciation of the role you play)
     • Communicative with counsel (i.e. the ability to participate in your defence)
   • Results: does seem to distinguish between those that have mental disorders that would render them unfit to stand trial than those that do not.
2. MacCAT-CA: (USA) a structured interview to determine if you’re fit to stand trial and plead guilty.
   • Questions are grouped into 3 categories:
     • Understanding of legal system
     • Reasoning ability
     • Understanding of own legal situation

Other procedures to test fitness:

• CST (Competency Screening Test): distinguishes between competent people and those who should undergo a more rigorous evaluation by completing uncomplicated sentences; these sentences cover 3 constructs:
  • Potential for a constructive relationship between the defendant and his lawyer;
  • The defendant’s understanding of the court process; and
  • The ability of the defendant to emotionally cope with the criminal process.
• CAI (Competency to Stand Trial Assessment Instrument): a semi-structured question/answer interview designed to accompany the CST; determines if the defendant is able to participate in the criminal process on behalf of their best interests.
• IFI (Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview): a semi-structured interview designed to test 3 areas of competencies:
  • Functional memory;
  • Appropriate relationship with lawyer; and
  • Understanding of the justice system.

Meta-Analysis Results of a Typical Unfit Person

Typically, people who are referred and found unfit tend to be: single, unemployed, living alone, older females belonging to a minority group and four times more likely to have met criteria for a psychotic disorder. Note that there was no difference between fit and unfit people in the frequency of violent, property and miscellaneous crimes; they had a similar criminal history and just as likely to have been in prison.

1.3 Treatment Issues

• Individuals found unfit are typically held in hospital prior to trial
• Goal: restore individual to fitness with as little delay as possible, typically with medication (sometimes requiring a treatment order).
  • Treatment Orders: where medication is forced upon the person.
• If individual remains unfit they are either detained in a hospital or conditionally discharged

1.4 After You’re Found Unfit

Jackson v Indiana: US Supreme Court determined a defendant should not be held for an unreasonable amount of time to determine fitness. In Canada, it’s 45 days.

• So long as you are deemed unfit, your case is reviewed on an annual basis by the review board.
• Crown must make prima facie case – they need to prove there’s enough evidence to bring the case to trial every 2 years (or 1 for youth) and whenever the defendant requests it.
• Absolute Discharge: a defendant may be given an absolute discharge if they meet 3 criteria:
  • Unlikely to ever become fit.
  • Does not pose a significant threat to society.
  • A stay of proceedings is in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

1.5 Example: Ted Kaczynski - Unabomber

He targeted universities and airliners; he was found fit, pled guilty and went to jail. (Wikipedia).

2. Criminal Responsibility

Definitions of Criminal Responsibility (Insanity): insanity is a legal concept not a medical or psychological one; definition of insanity may vary by jurisdiction – not being of sound mind, mentally deranged and irrational; retrospective assessment has to be conducted of the state of mind when the crime happened.

1. N’Naghten Standard (Cognitive): (USA) at the time of the crime, you must suffer from a defect of reason and you must not know the nature of the act or understand that it was wrong.
2. Irresistible Impulse Test (Volitional): (USA) accused could have the cognitive knowledge of what is right or wrong if their illness results in an inability to control behaviour.
3. ALI Standard (Cognitive/Volitional): (USA) not responsible if the accused lacks the capacity to appreciate the criminality of the act or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.
4. Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI): (USA) mentally ill but also guilty of the crime; accused are provided treatment until they are declared sane – prison for same term as other offenders.
5. NCRMD (Not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder) (R v. Swain):
   • (Canada) not legally responsible while suffering a disorder that renders you incapable of appreciating the nature of the act or incapable of knowing that the act was wrong (similar to M’Naghten Standard)
   • A defendant should only be found NCRMD if they pose a criminal threat to the public; otherwise, they should be granted an absolute discharge.

2.1 Assessment of Responsibility

Review Boards: legal bodies mandated to oversee the case and disposition of defendants found unfit and/or NCRMD. (Must review once a year). Assessment of Responsibility: only the defence can raise the issue, unless the verdict of guilty has been handed down. Responsibility is assessed using an assessment instrument; can take between 30 and 60 days for assessment orders. We assess responsibility with two tests:

1. R-CRAS (Rogers Criminal Assessment Scales): a clinician uses information from this assessment to identify insanity through 5 scales:
   1. Organicity (brain issues);
   2. Psychopathology;
   3. Cognitive control;
   4. Behavioural control; and
   5. Reliability of the report (ex. lying or malingering).
2. MSE: (USA) identifies non-insanity through 3 key issues:
   1. General psychological history;
   2. Mental state at the time of offence; and
   3. Current mental status.

2.2 Treatment Issues

Once found NCRMD, three things can happen:

1. If the defendant does not pose a threat to society, they must be given an absolute discharge.
2. If the defendant may post a threat to society, they can be given a conditional discharge.
3. Or they review boards or courts may determine that the defendant be sent to a psychiatric facility.
   • Capping: max period of time a person in a psychiatric facility may be imprisoned; after serving their time, they may be released or, if a dangerous/violent offender, they must stay longer.
   • Four Criteria Considered: public safety, mental state, reintegration of defendant into society and other needs of the defendant.

2.3 Example – Jeffry Dahmer

Milwaukee serial killer: ALI standard used to determine if he was fit to stand trial – said he was sane and convicted him on 15 counts of murder and was sentenced to 15 consecutive life sentences. (Wikipedia)

2.4 True or False?

Answers:

• Slightly lower rates of recidivism of NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity) acquittees compared to matched felons.
• Beyond found NGRI results in more detainment time than if you were found guilty.
• Most crimes committed by NGRI are normally drug offences.
• The use of different insanity standards does not have an effect on the verdicts of jurors.