Reisner Andrew D, Piel Jennifer L
Dr. Reisner is the Executive Director of The Forensic Diagnostic Center of District Nine, Cambridge, OH. Dr. Piel is Staff Psychiatrist, VA Puget Sound Healthcare System, and Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2018 Mar;46(1):86-92.
In Ohio, a criminal defendant is incompetent to stand trial only if "a present mental condition" renders him unable to understand the nature and objectives of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense. Some forensic mental health evaluators have treated the mental-condition requirement as synonymous with, or similar to, the psychiatric condition required in the state's insanity criteria, which requires a "severe mental disease or defect." Yet the term mental condition does not appear in other areas of the state's criminal code or in the state's definition of a mental illness for purposes of civil commitment. Moreover, Ohio's adjudicative competency statute does not explain what conditions or symptoms constitute a mental condition sufficient to render a defendant incompetent. This article is a review of the mental condition requirement in competence to stand trial laws, using Ohio as an example, and how this term has been interpreted (or misinterpreted) by mental health evaluators and the legal system. Suggestions for practicing forensic evaluators are offered.
在俄亥俄州，只有当“当前的精神状况”致使刑事被告无法理解针对他的诉讼程序的性质和目的，或无法协助自己进行辩护时，该被告才无受审能力。一些法医精神健康评估人员将精神状况要求视为与该州精神错乱标准中所要求的精神疾病状况同义或相似，该标准要求存在“严重精神疾病或缺陷”。然而，“精神状况”一词并未出现在该州刑法的其他领域，也未出现在该州为民事拘押目的而对精神疾病的定义中。此外，俄亥俄州的审判能力法规并未解释哪些状况或症状构成足以使被告无受审能力的精神状况。本文以俄亥俄州为例，回顾了受审能力法律中的精神状况要求，以及该术语是如何被精神健康评估人员和法律系统解释（或错误解释）的。文中还为从业的法医评估人员提供了建议。
