What’s a skills assessment?

[ad_1]

An assessment of competency, in the American criminal justice system, is an assessment of a defendant’s ability to understand the charges against him and to consult with his attorney to defend himself against those charges. Additionally, death row inmates, or their attorney, may request a skills assessment to determine if they understand why they received that sentence and what it means. The concept that a defendant must be mentally competent to stand trial was established in British common law as early as 1736, but was always open to interpretation.

In 1960, the US Supreme Court clarified the matter in its decision Dusky v. United States, stipulating that a defendant must have a rational understanding of the charges against him and be able to consult his attorney. The ruling also affirmed the defendant’s right to a competency assessment before proceeding to trial. The Court’s creation of these standards resulted in legislation in all 50 states that require skill assessments.

In some cases, the assessment is made by the judge of the case, based on preliminary interviews and assessments of the mental state of the accused. There are also standardized assessments that can be administered to defendants. Alternatively, either party, or the judge, may request a jurisdiction assessment at any point during the proceedings. Mental health and medical professionals may interview and test the defendant, but the ultimate determination of jurisdiction is made by the judge. Furthermore, a defendant’s competence for other purposes, such as pleading guilty or waiving the right to legal representation, is not subject to any higher standards than those used to assess your competence to sue.

Establishing a defendant’s jurisdiction is critical to the successful prosecution of a case. If a defendant is found to be incompetent, he cannot be tried. Such defendants are sometimes civilly admitted to a mental health facility, but if that is not possible, they are released. Additionally, if a defendant is convicted and is later determined to have been denied a competency assessment, the conviction will most likely be overturned with no opportunity to retrial the defendant.

The possibility of avoiding trial altogether prompted some defendants to feign incompetence. This issue was addressed by the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in the 2005 case United States v Binion. The psychologist who conducted the competency assessment concluded that the defendant was faking himself and a further charge of obstruction of justice was filed. The defendant pleaded guilty and appealed, but the obstruction conviction was upheld.

Capital punishment is an area where the jurisdiction requirement is controversial. The Supreme Court upheld a long-standing common law principle that the insane cannot be executed; the issue was addressed in Ford v. Wainwright 1986. When convicts awaiting execution are assessed as incapable of execution, efforts are made, often including psychiatric drugs, to bring them to an acceptable level of proficiency. This also poses an ethical and moral dilemma for mental health professionals charged with improving the competency of those to be sentenced to death.
Defendant jurisdiction is an area of ​​the law that is continually being explored and clarified as we become more familiar with the diseases and dysfunctions of the human mind. Where competency assessments once meant the defendant most likely would not go to trial, a botched murder-suicide in 1989 in Connecticut led to this standard being changed. The defendant was accused of killing his girlfriend and botched his own suicide attempt. A competency assessment determined that he could not stand trial due to brain damage resulting from the suicide attempt; years later, he was discovered attending college and getting good grades. The defendant was arrested and subjected to a re-evaluation of competency, which determined that he met the standards of competency, and in 1999 pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

[ad_2]