19 terms and concepts from evaluations of competency to stand trial of 55 defendants with mental retardation were rated to examine whether a quick screening test could be devised that would differentiate those who were judged competent or not competent. A multiple regression and discriminant analysis gave four items that yielded maximum predictability (R = .84): court strategy, plead, testify, and jury. Guilty, trial, and prosecutor were also significantly more difficult for those who were not competent than those who were.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Bar Association. (1989) ABA criminal justice mental health standards. (2nd ed.) Washington, DC: Author.
2.
BaroffG.FreedmanS. (1988) Mental retardation and Miranda. The Champion, April, 6–9.
3.
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. 97–120.
4.
BrownB. S.CourtlessT. F. (1971) Mentally retarded offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health, Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency.
5.
ConleyR. W.LuckassonR.BouthiletG. N. (Eds.) (1992) The criminal justice system and mental retardation. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
6.
DenkowskiG. C.DenkowskiK. M. (1985) The mentally retarded offender in the state prison system: Identification, prevalence, adjustment, and rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 53–70.
7.
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1974).
8.
EllisJ.LuckassonR. (1985) Mentally retarded criminal defendants. The George Washington Law Review, 53, 414–493.
9.
EveringtonC. T.LuckassonR. (1992) Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation (CAST-MR). Worthington, OH: International Diagnostic Systems.
10.
FitchW. L.WarrenJ. I. (1988) Highlights of the forensic evaluation research report. Developments in Mental Health Law, 8(1), 6–7.
11.
GrissoT. (1986) Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York: Plenum.
12.
GrissoT. (1988) Competency to stand trial evaluations: A manual for practice. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
13.
McAfeeJ. K.GuralM. (1988) Individuals with mental retardation and the criminal justice system: The view from states' attorneys general. Mental Retardation, 26, 5–14.
14.
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.
15.
MoschellaS. (1982) The mentally retarded offender: Law enforcement and court proceedings. In SantamourM. B.WatsonP. S. (Eds.), The retarded offender. New York: Praeger. Pp. 195–204.
16.
NobleJ.ConleyR. (1992) Toward an epidemiology of relevant attributes. In ConleyR. W.LuckassonR.BouthiletG. N. (Eds.), The criminal justice system and mental retardation. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Pp. 17–53.
17.
NorleyD. (1976) Police training in the recognition and handling of retarded citizens: Guidelines and materials. Arlington, TX: National Assn for Retarded Citizens.
18.
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966).
19.
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. 79–96.
20.
SantamourM. B.WestB. (1979) Retardation and criminal justice: A training manual for criminal justice personnel. Washington, DC: President's Committee on Mental Retardation.
21.
SaugetM. F.WightmanL. H.EverettM. (1988) Comparison of competent and incompetent mentally retarded defendants. (Unpublished manuscript, Center for Forensic Psychiatry, Ann Arbor, MI).
22.
SmithS. A. (1993) Confusing the terms “guilty” and “not guilty”: Implications for alleged offenders with mental retardation. Psychological Reports, 73, 675–678.
23.
SmithS. A.BroughtonS. F. (1994) Competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility: An analysis in South Carolina. Mental Retardation, 32, 281–287.
