Related Experiment Videos
The judge's view of competency evaluations. II
H Owens1, R Rosner, R B Harmon
1Forensic Psychiatry Clinic for the Criminal and Supreme Courts, New York, NY 10013.
The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
|January 1, 1987
Summary
Trial court judges understand psychiatric evaluations for competence but often seek additional information, such as dangerousness. They pragmatically value psychiatric input, reporting high satisfaction despite low expectations.
Area of Science:
- Forensic Psychiatry
- Judicial Decision-Making
Background:
- Trial court judges order psychiatric examinations to assess defendant competence.
- Understanding judicial needs is crucial for effective forensic psychiatric evaluations.
Purpose of the Study:
- To survey trial court judges on information pertinent to psychiatric competence examinations.
- To explore judges' utilization and expectations of psychiatric input in legal proceedings.
Main Methods:
- Survey of twenty trial court judges.
- Analysis of judicial perspectives on psychiatric evaluations for competence.
Main Results:
- Judges demonstrated a clear understanding of competence evaluation requirements.
- A significant tendency for judges to request additional psychiatric information beyond competence (e.g., dangerousness, treatment needs).
- Judges expressed eagerness for psychiatric input, viewing it pragmatically with low expectations but high satisfaction.
Conclusions:
- Judicial use of competence evaluations extends to broader case-related issues.
- Forensic psychiatric evaluations are valued by judges, who find them pragmatically useful despite modest expectations.