Appraising Jackson-based unrestorability to competence to stand trial: The demonstration model

Under United States law, criminal prosecution may not proceed against a defendant who is incompetent to participate in this process. The vast majority of defendants who are adjudicated incompetent to stand trial (IST) will subsequently regain sufficient capacities to be adjudicated competent to stand trial (CST). However, a small subgroup of defendants do not show sufficient improvement in clinical functioning and functional-legal capacities to regain CST. Under Jackson v. Indiana (1972), such individuals should be adjudicated unrestorably IST, with associated actions (e.g., dropping of criminal charges, civil commitment, transfer to a less restrictive environment or released) specified under the particular jurisdictional statutes. But the present practices associated with the evaluation of unrestorability do not appear well supported by research. In particular, statutorily specified evaluative procedures are overly dependent on prediction in some instances and allow an unnecessarily long restoration period in others. In the present article, we propose and describe an alternative approach-the Demonstration Model-that would address both challenges, providing a more consistent and standard approach to assessing CST and the possibility that a defendant may not recover needed capacities within the foreseeable future. Implementation of this approach can potentially guide restoration planning and intervention, decrease unsupported reliance upon prediction in favor of observing and documenting the results of selected interventions, and provide legal decision-makers with clearer and more transparent evidence, while acknowledging the liberty interests of IST defendants set forth in Jackson. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).