TEST 3

Question 1

Insanity Defense

Answer 1

Goal: Determine what the patient’s mental status was at the time they committed the crime
The evaluation assists the court in determining whether the individual should be held accountable for their actions

Question 2

8 Myths about the insanity defense

Answer 2

1. Insanity defense is overused
2. Use of insanity defense is limited to murder cases
3. There is no risk to the def who pleads insanity
4. NGRI acquittees are quickly released from custody
5. NGRI acquittees spend much less time in custody than do defs convicted of the same offenses
6. People who plead insanity are usually faking
7. Most insanity defense trials feature “battles of the experts”
8. Criminal defense attorneys employ the insanity def solely to “beat the rap”

Question 3

Difficulty in determining insanity

Answer 3

Insanity is a legal concept that may vary from one jurisdiction to another
Requires a retrospective assessment of the person’s mental state at the time of the offense

Question 4

2 components in every crime

Answer 4

1. actus reus

2. mens rea

Question 5

3 criminal defenses

Answer 5

1. deny actus reus
2. deny mens rea
3. provide jurisdiction for the act

Question 6

NGRI defense

Answer 6

Involves denial of mens rea

If successful, results in commitment to a psychiatric hospital

Question 7

What are the 4 rules for defining insanity?

Answer 7

1. M’Naghten Rule
2. Irresistible Impulse Test
3. Durham Test
4. The American Law Institute (ALI) Standard/ Brawner Rule

Question 8

M’Naghten Rule

Answer 8

Used by 27 US States
Considered a cognitive test of insanity
Elements:
1. Defect of reason, from a disease of the mind
2. Did not know the “nature and quality of the act he was doing”
2. Did not know that “what he was doing was wrong”

Question 9

Irresistible Impulse Test

Answer 9

Standard added to account for individuals who knew the act was wrong but lacked the capacity to control their behavior
Volitional aspect of insanity
Problem: it is difficult to distinguish b/w an irresistible impulse and one that is simply not resisted
Added to M’Naghten Rule in 5 states (CO,GA,NM,TX,VA)

Question 10

Durham Test

Answer 10

Standard: the def is not criminally responsible if his or her unlawful act was a product of mental disease or defect
Problem: application of any familiar clinical- diagnostic label?
Currently used in only New Hampshire

Question 11

ALI Standard/Brawner Rule

Answer 11

Elements:
1. As a result of mental disease or defect
2. Lacks substantial capacity to a) appreciate wrongfullness b) Conform conduct to the law excludes abnormalities comprised of antisocial conduct
Includes a cognitive and volitional prong
Currently 18 states use the ALI Standard

Question 12

How many states do not provide a legal basis for an insanity defense?

Answer 12

4

Question 13

“Guilty but mentally ill” verdict (GBMI)

Answer 13

recognizes that the def has a mental illness but they are still held responsible for their actions
Def is provided treatment at a state mental hospital until he/she is declared to be sane, then is sent to prison
Recognized in 13 states

Question 14

Criticisms of GBMI

Answer 14

1. Differing definitions and incarceration decisions
2. Difficulties distinguishing NGRI and GBMI
3. Has not led to reduced NGRI acquittals
4. Does not ensure that offenders receive effective treatment

Question 15

Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984

Answer 15

Congress radically overhauled the federal laws regarding insanity after the Hinkley verdict
Removed volitional prong of ALI rule
Focus on cognitive “appreciation”
Burden of proof- shifted to def to prove insanity by clear and convincing evid.; most states concur but typically with the preponderance of the evid. standard

Question 16

Psychologists Role in Assessment of Mental Status for Insanity Cases

Answer 16

Interviews
-Often unstandardized and unstructured, but used in almost every case
Psychological Assessment
-Mental Screening Evaluation (MSE)- clinician-completed questionnaire; to “screen out” those defs whose lawbreaking actions clearly were not caused by a mental abnormality
-Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS)- structured interview; measures the ALI definition of insanity via 25 quantifiable variables

Question 17

Psychologists role in testifying as an expert witness for insanity cases

Answer 17

Prosecution and defense may both have experts with conflicting testimony
The court may also appoint an expert
Sometimes difficult cross-examinations

Question 18

Ultimate-Issue Testing

Answer 18

Psychologists are divided on whether it is proper for an expert to express an opinion about whether the def was sane or insane at the time of the offense

• insanity is a legal decision, so some argue that it should be the decision of the judge or the jury
• such testimony was one of the targets of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (modified fed law specifically to prohibit mental health experts from testifying about ultimate legal issues)

Question 19

Federal Rules of Evid. 704 (b)

Answer 19

Basically, no expert witness can state their opinion as to the mental state of the def- that is a matter for the trier to decide

Question 20

Constitutional basis for trial competence

Answer 20

Constitutional DP (fundamental fairness) requires that the def have opportunity for meaningful participation in the case
If the def is mentally incapable of meaningful participation, the right to trial is an empty right
Thus, trial of a def who is incompetent to stand trial violates the constitution

Question 21

What is trial competence

Answer 21

Ability to rationally and effectively consult with one’s attorney
Ability to understand the nature of the charges against them
Ability to understand legal proceedings and participate in them in a meaningful manner

Question 22

Dusky and Drope Standard

Answer 22

Legal Competence standard
“Def must have “sufficient present ability to consult w/ his attorney w/ a reasonable degree of rational understanding and rationale as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him” -Dusky
Def must also have the capacity “to assist in preparing his defense” -Drope

Question 23

In about what percent of cases do def attorneys have concerns about their client’s competency to stand trial?

Answer 23

10-15%

Question 24

About how many defs are referred for eval of their competency per year?

Answer 24

25,000

Question 25

What percent of defs evaluated for competency are found to be incompetent?

Answer 25

10-15% (1-2% of all defs)

Question 26

Where is the issue of competence most often raised?

Answer 26

Pretrial hearings (though it applies at every stage in the CJ process)

Question 27

T/F Incompetency is equated with a particular diagnosis

Answer 27

FALSE

Question 28

Competency to plead guilty

Answer 28

Must be "voluntarily and intelligently" entered Pleading guilty involves waiving several rights: 1. Jury trial (6th amend) 2. Right to confront accusers (6th amend) 3. Not to be a witness against one's self (5th amend)

Question 29

Do juvenile courts have to provide the same DP rights to juveniles as adults?

Answer 29

YES- decided in In re Gault (1967)

Question 30

Most developmental psych research indicates that capacity to understand info about the trial process and to reason with the info relevant to the situation is still developing in most children until what age?

Answer 30

14

Question 31

Experts suggest that juvenile's competency should be evaluated when?

Answer 31

Age 12 or under Prior diagnosis of or treatment for a mental illness or MR "A borderline" or lower IQ or learning diability Observation by others that suggest defects in memory, attention, or interpretation of reality

Question 32

Importance of a confession

Answer 32

Most damaging evid that can be presented at trial (juries almost always convict defs who have confessed to committing a crime) Must consider the circumstances under which confessions are obtained (must be voluntary)

Question 33

3 types of false confessions

Answer 33

1. Voluntary false confessions- offered willingly; seeking publicity; generalized guilt; psychosis 2. Coerced-compliant confessions- to escape further interrogation, gain a promised benefit or avoid a threatened punishment 3. Coerced-Internalized Confessions- innocent suspects confess and come to believe that they are guilty

Question 34

Goals of interrogation

Answer 34

1. Get more info | 2. induce a confession

Question 35

Successful interrogation process

Answer 35

1. Make the suspect view his situation as hopeless and already determined 2. persuade that a confession will not worsen his future and may be to his advantage

Question 36

What can police do in interrogations?

Answer 36

Use manipulative tactics (minimization, maximization, rapport-building) Misrepresent facts of the case Use techniques that take advantage of emotions or beliefs of the suspect Fail to inform the suspect of some important fact that might make the suspect less likely to confess

Question 37

What can police NOT do in interrogations?

Answer 37

``` Physical force threats prolonged isolation deprivation of food/sleep Promises of leniency Failure to notify suspect of miranda rights Certain types of psychological influence ```

Question 38

Colorado v Connelly (1986)

Answer 38

A suspect's mental limitations or psychological problems alone are not sufficient for concluding that a confession was involuntary

Question 39

Arizona v Fulminante (1991)

Answer 39

The SC ruled that a coerced confession could be considered as harmless error if there was sufficient other evid to convict the def

Question 40

Miranda v Arizona (1966)

Answer 40

Earnest Miranda confessed and was convicted of rape and kidnapping in 1963- sentenced to 20-30 years for each charge Appealed his conviction all the way to SC, which ruled 5-4 that his right against self-incrimination had been violated because he had not been advised of it

Question 41

Miranda waiver

Answer 41

Before custodial interrogation, a def must be advised of miranda rights If the def waives and makes an incriminating statement, the statement is not admissible unless the waiver was made "knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently" Evaluation involves: Focus on def's mental state at time of confession Review of records of interrogation Assessment of def's susceptibility to coercion Assessment of def's understanding of miranda rights as read or presented by interrogators

Question 42

Malingering

Answer 42

Intentional and conscious fabrication and/or exaggeration of symptoms in order to obtain an external goal OR Intentional and conscious suppression of true ability in order to obtain an external goal Evidenced by: 1. Production of false symptoms 2. Exaggeration of true symptoms 3. Suppression of true abilities

Question 43

Goals of malingering

Answer 43

1. avoid undesired consequences (incarceration, work, military duty) 2. Obtain desired goals (prescription meds, disability income)

Question 44

Difference between Malingering and Factitious Disorder

Answer 44

In factitious disorder, you are searching for internal, not external reward (primary gain) Production of symptoms is conscious, but the only goal is assuming the sick role

Question 45

Difference between Malingering and defensiveness

Answer 45

With defensiveness, there is intentional and conscious denial or minimization of symptoms for some specified prupose

Question 46

Difference between malingering and conversion disorder

Answer 46

With conversion disorder, symptoms are not consciously produced like they are in malingering

Question 47

3 models for explaining malingering

Answer 47

1. pathogenic 2. criminologic 3. adaptational

Question 48

Pathogenic explanation of malingering

Answer 48

Asserts that people who malinger are mentally ill Rationale is that people who are truly ill attempt to gain control of symptoms by consciously producing them Theory is espoused by few and is not supported by research (described by some as "nonsense")

Question 49

Criminologic explanation for malingering

Answer 49

Asserts that people who malinger are bad Malingering is just one of many types of manipulative, antisocial, and deceitful behaviors displayed by antisocial persons This is the theory that seems to underlie the DSM's definition of malingering Little support exists for this explanation conceptually or empirically Theory is not espoused by most experts Theory is commonly presumed by laypersons and clinicians without training regarding malingering

Question 50

When does the DSM say malingering should be suspected?

Answer 50

Medico-legal context of presentation (eg forensic eval) Marked Discrepancy b/w claimed distress and objective findings Lack of cooperation w/ diagnostic eval or w/ prescribed treatment regimen Presence of antisocial personality disorder

Question 51

Adaptational explanation for malingering

Answer 51

Asserts that people who malinger are trying to cope with difficult situations Suggests that malingering is more likely when: a) context of eval is perceived as adversarial b) stakes of eval for examinee are high c) absence of viable alternative explanations for exaggerated/feigned symptoms Malingering is UNDERSTANDABLE but not necessarily DEFENSIBLE Some empirical support for this (rates of malingering are higher in adversarial contexts, such as forensic evals) Experts have embraced this model in recent years Only good, objective model

Question 52

Prevalence of malingering

Answer 52

``` Very hard to determine because some malingerers are never discovered Personal Injury- 20-30% Disability Claimants- 19-20% Medical Examinations- 8-35% Criminal Defs- 12-20% ```

Question 53

Keys to detection of malingering

Answer 53

Identification of instances of improbability Characterize dysfunction as consciously and deliberately produced Acquire convincing evid (be cautious of patient's self-report) Determine motives of patient (must ID potential secondary gain)

Question 54

13 Potential Signs of malingering

Answer 54

1. Overplayed and dramatic presentation 2. Deliberateness and carefullness in presentation 3. Symptoms inconsistent w/ psychiatric diagnosis 4. inconsistency of self-report 5. Endorsement of obvious symptoms 6. Approx. answers to questions 7. Eagerness to discuss symptoms 8. Eagerness for psychotropic medications 9. Extreme severity of symptoms 10. Indiscriminate endorsement of symptoms 11. Endorsement of unusual or rare symptoms 12. Unusual combinations of symptoms 13. Discrepancy b/w reported and observed symptoms

Question 55

Psychological Testing for malingering

Answer 55

Response style indicators on some standard personality tests Tests that assess for malingered memory impairment Tests that assess for malingering or generalized cognitive impairment Tests that assess for malingering of psychiatric symptomatology

Question 56

Instruments for assessing malingering

Answer 56

``` Rey 15-Item Memory Test Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) MMPI-2 Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) M-FAST Validity Indicator Profile (VIP) ```

Question 57

ADvantages of psychological testing

Answer 57

Questions are asked in a standardized manner Idiosyncratic contributions of clinician are minimized Results are comparable to every other administration of the test Clinical prediction, diagnosis, and classifications are governed by the same decision rules

Question 58

US v Greer (1998)

Answer 58

Convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to 185 months Malingering in pretrial forensic eval Court determined that malingering constitutes obstruction of justice Sentence enhanced- additional 25 months in prison