This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bayliss, C. M. Articles by Polk, O. E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Attorneys’ Self-Reported Perspectives and Criteria for Requesting Competency Evaluations in Criminal Defense Cases

Sam Houston State University

O. Elmer Polk

University of Texas at Arlington

It is hypothesized that attorneys with more experience and attorneys with a more favorable opinion of the usefulness of competency to stand trial evaluations will adopt a more paternalistic approach in the application and use of competency evaluation. The criteria by which attorneys adopting the paternalistic approach decide to have certain defendants evaluated for their competency to stand trial is focused more on the client’s best interests, such as mental welfare, rather than strictly on case outcome, or the least restrictive measures. This study surveys criminal defense attorneys in a large, urban, North Texas county as to which decisional approach, paternalism or pure advocacy, they follow. The study finds that attorneys with a more favorable opinion of the usefulness of competency evaluations express a greater degree of support of the use of both paternalistic and pure-advocacy items as solitary criteria for seeking a competency evaluation.

Key Words: competency • incompetency • forensic evaluation

Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 30, No. 3, 312-324 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0734016805285185


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?