Evaluations of competency to stand trial of 45 alleged offenders with mental retardation were inspected to examine their understanding of “guilty” and “not guilty” Seven defendants (16%) had virtually no knowledge of “guilty” and were judged not competent after a thorough evaluation. None received a jail sentence. Although the criminal justice system served well this group with mental retardation, questions remain about the fate of those not identified. Are some pleading guilty when actually meaning “I did not do it” and being surprised by an unexpected jail sentence?
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BonnieR. J. (1992) The competency of defendants with mental retardation to assist in their own defense. In ConleyR. W.LuckassonR.BouthiletG. N. (Eds.), The criminal justice system and mental retardation. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Pp. 98–100.
2.
BrownB. S.CourtlessT. F. (1971) Mentally retarded offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health, Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency.
3.
ConleyR. W.LuckassonR.BouthiletG. N. (Eds.) (1992) The criminal justice system and mental retardation. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
4.
EllisJ.LuckassonR. (1985) Mentally retarded criminal defendants. The George Washington Law Review, 53, 414–493.
5.
McAfeeJ. K.GuralM. (1988) Individuals with mental retardation and the criminal justice system: The view from states' attorney general. Mental Retardation, 26(1), 5–14.
6.
MessingerR.DavidsonP. W. (1992) Training programs and defendants with mental retardation. In ConleyR. W.LuckassonR.BouthiletG. N. (Eds.), The criminal justice system and mental retardation. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Pp. 221–234.
7.
PetrellaR. C. (1992) Defendants with mental retardation in the forensic services system. In ConleyR. W.LuckassonR.BouthiletG. N. (Eds.), The criminal justice system and mental retardation. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Pp. 85–87.
8.
SantamourM. B.WatsonP. S. (Eds.) (1982) The retarded offender. New York: Praeger.
