This assignment focuses specifically on competency; specifically, competency as a defendant’s mental state during criminal proceedings. Competency can be used to mean many things, for example competency as the term relates to an expert witness’ competency to inform the court on a subject matter. Here we are discussing competency as the term relates to a defendant’s competency (i.e., competency to stand trial, to waive their Constitutional right to counsel, to be executed, etc.).
Competency is distinct from sanity; or phrased differently, incompetency is distinct from insanity. They are not the same thing, and understanding the difference between them is essential to a student of forensic psychology; as is understanding the case law relevant to each construct. Very generally, competency (CST) is concerned with a defendant’s mental state during criminal proceedings, while sanity (MSO) is concerned with a defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense. These are distinct constructs which have very different concerns, are made up of very different factors, and have different implications.
Read Ragatz, Vitacco & Tross (2015) and Reisner, Piel & Makey (2013). The Bartol & Bartol chapter could be helpful as an optional reading. A power point has also been posted for your reference.
Then, respond to the following:
1. Using the readings, explain what competency is; specific to a defendant’s competency. In your own words, provide a definition of competency in criminal trials.
2. There are numerous types of competencies; Competency to Stand Trial (CST; sometimes called Competency to Proceed) is only type of competency. Name and explain at least THREE types of competencies (you can use CST as one type; so CST plus two other types). For example, the Ragatz article briefly reviews Ford v. Wainwright which is case law specific to a certain competency.
3. When might competency be raised? In other words, when (at what point) and what might happen for competency concerns to be raised?
4. Dusky v. U.S. is essential case law to understand in regard to competency (CST). Explain the Dusky case. Who was Dusky? What did he do? Why was competency raised? What was the outcome of the case? What is the Dusky rule (Dusky Standard)?
5. There is a Constitutional concern that makes competency extremely important. What Constitutional protections are of concern in considering competency? In other words, if an incompetent defendant were allowed to proceed, what Constitutional protections would they be denied by going forward while incompetent? Which Amendments and what protections afforded by that / those Amendments are raised in regard to competency?
6. Reisner et al make recommendations regarding competency that are in keeping with Litwack’s (2003) recommendations. What are those recommendations regarding competency?
7. The Ragatz article explores what “rationality” means specific to Dusky and competency. Using Ragatz, what does rationality mean specific to competency? What does it mean for a defendant to have a “rational understanding” in regard to competency? Does it meant the defendant must understand every single aspect of the criminal process? If not, then what does it mean?
