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).

Taking the next step in Miranda evaluations: Considering racial trauma and the impact of prior police contact.

By law, before interrrogating a suspect who is in custody, the police should inform them of their Miranda rights-the rights against self-incrimination and to an attorney. When a suspect or defendant waives their Miranda rights, a judge ultimately determines whether the waiver was legal. In making this determination, the judge employs the totality of the circumstances (TOC) analysis, which includes factors related to the individual defendant as well as the environment in which they waived their rights. Frequently, forensic psychologists evaluate a defendant to offer courts a clinical opinion about the defendant's ability to understand and appreciate their Miranda rights and to provide other TOC information. These evaluations are referred to as Miranda evaluations. Using Miranda evaluations as an illustration, this article describes how the critical, yet often overlooked, concepts of racial trauma and vicarious and direct prior police contacts should routinely be considered as part of forensic evaluations. After providing a succinct overview of the relevant legal issues related to Miranda rights and of the existing guidelines for conducting Miranda evaluations, we discuss the psychological impact of racial trauma and prior vicarious and direct police contacts. We provide case examples to illustrate how evaluators can consider the impact of racial trauma and prior police contact when conducting Miranda evaluations. This article serves as a practical guide for understanding how and why-in the context of their lived experiences-suspects may waive their Miranda rights. Finally, we recommend how to improve policy and research to better capture issues related to racial trauma and prior police contacts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Life-sentenced juveniles: Public perceptions of risk and need for incarceration.

Pursuant to recent United States Supreme Court decisions in Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), individuals convicted of crimes committed when they were younger than 18 and for which they received mandatory life sentences are entitled to new sentencing hearings. This study examined public perceptions of such individuals (life-sentenced juveniles, or LSJs). Study participants were 663 adults (52.3% male) ages 22-71 years (M = 36.00, SD = 11.46) recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Each participant received one of a possible four vignettes about a man who was incarcerated for a crime that occurred when he was 17 years old and subsequently sentenced to mandatory life in prison following conviction. Two variables (risk of harming others if released to the community, and circumstances of the crime) were manipulated in a 2 × 2 between-subjects design. Each participant read one vignette and then answered questions relating to appropriateness for release from prison. Results indicate that risk, but not circumstances of the crime, strongly influenced participants' views regarding resentencing. When the individual in the vignette was labeled as high risk, participants described him as less appropriate for release, more deserving of punishment, needing more rehabilitation, and more appropriate for specific and general deterrence. The circumstances of the crime had no effect on participants' responses. This may be important for various reasons, as applicable law does not explicitly identify risk as a consideration in juvenile resentencing. The nonetheless noteworthy empirical influence of risk on perceptions regarding LSJs is discussed in their implications for research, policy, and practice.

Diversion at re-entry using criminogenic CBT: Review and prototypical program development.

Society and the criminal justice system prioritize the reduction of reoffending risk as part of any criminal justice intervention. The Sequential Intercept Model identifies five points of interception at which justice-involved individuals can be diverted into a more rehabilitative alternative: (1) law enforcement/emergency services; (2) booking/initial court hearings; (3) jails/courts; (4) re-entry; and (5) community corrections/community support. The present article focuses on diversion as part of Intercept 5 - re-entry planning and specialized services in the community. We describe the challenges associated with diversion at this stage, and review the relevant research. Next, we describe a "criminogenic cognitive behavioral therapy" project that has been developed and implemented as part of a federal re-entry court. Finally, we discuss the implications of the challenges of intervention at this stage, and the recently developed "Re-entry Project," for research, policy, and practice.