Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, Richmond, VA, USA.
Behav Sci Law. 2020 Jan;38(1):32-50. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2436. Epub 2020 Feb 3.
Competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations are a critical part of certain criminal proceedings, and competence-related evaluation and treatment are an increasing part of public mental health services. Whereas more research describes the defendants undergoing competence evaluations, less research has examined the actual reports detailing those competence evaluations. This study reviewed 3,644 court-ordered CST evaluation reports submitted by 126 evaluators in Virginia since Virginia initiated an oversight system allowing for comprehensive review. The base rate of incompetence opinions was 38.8%, but these rates varied significantly across evaluation type (initial versus post-restoration efforts) and evaluators (ranging from 9.1% to 76.8% incompetence rate). Results suggest generally strong compliance with state statutes guiding CST evaluations, but also highlight marked variability in forensic conclusions and reveal a few areas in which some reports fell short of statutory requirements and practice guidelines.
审判能力评估(CST)是某些刑事诉讼程序的重要组成部分,与能力相关的评估和治疗也是公共精神卫生服务日益增加的一部分。虽然更多的研究描述了接受能力评估的被告,但很少有研究检查详细描述这些能力评估的实际报告。本研究回顾了自弗吉尼亚州启动允许全面审查的监督系统以来,126 名评估员提交的 3644 份法院命令的 CST 评估报告。无能力意见的基本比率为 38.8%,但这些比率在评估类型(初始与恢复后努力)和评估员(从 9.1%到 76.8%的无能力率)之间存在显著差异。结果表明,总体上对指导 CST 评估的州法规有较强的遵守,但也突出了法医结论的显著差异,并揭示了一些报告不符合法规要求和实践指南的领域。