Courts have divided on this question and at least one Supreme Court Justice has indicated that trying synthetically competent defendants may be unconstitutional. The dissent in the Hendricks case agreed with the Kansas Supreme Court that the purpose of the Kansas statute was punishment.
Further research is necessary to identify reasons for the similarities and differences among the two groups.
When you are done browsing please remember to return to this page and log out. A charged prisoner may be temporarily or, in some cases, permanently diverted into the mental health system if there is a question of competence to stand trial or to plead guilty.
Skip to page content. This article appears in In WorldCat, verify that the library you select has the specific journal volume and issue in which the article appears. Rather, they are akin to ordinary involuntary commitment and similarly justifiable because the alleged predator poses a risk to the public and the necessary finding of mental abnormality implies both that the alleged sexual predator is unable to control his mentally disordered sex offenders in Албани sexual behavior and is not responsible.
The dynamic factors and criminogenic needs that are associated empirically with reoffending are ones that can be changed through intervention and, therefore, are of primary focus when formulating and detailing the individualized treatment recommendations.
J Exp Psychol. In: Laws, D. Willan Publishing, p.
Whereas the incompetence to stand trial standard addresses whether the defendant is at present unable to stand trial, the insanity defense standard concerns whether the defendant was mentally disordered and legally insane in the past, at the time of the offense. Courts have divided on this question and at least one Supreme Court Justice has indicated that trying synthetically competent defendants may be unconstitutional.
Indeed, most of the nation's major mental health organizations argued that these quasi-criminal commitments are unwise and should be unconstitutional because they are a devious misuse of the mental health system to achieve essentially non-mental-health goals. These findings suggest that mental health evaluations are utilized more to "medicalize" the commitment of habitual criminals rather than address amenability to treatment.