The Ramifications of Competency-Based Education

For someone claiming intellectual disability, the ramifications of competency to stand trial often arises from the fact that the individual may lack a rational or factual understanding of the charges against him or her. According to the Dusky standard, competency to stand trial is determined by whether the accused person is able to consult with his or her attorney and his or her understanding of the proceedings (Romaine, Kemp, & DeMatteo, 2010). Intellectual disability introduces a significant ramification on whether the individual is in a position that would allow him or her to get a clear understanding of the proceedings. In my view, there is a much better way of having to assess competency to determine whether, indeed, an individual is capable of standing trial. Psychological testing is an approach that can be used as part of the assessment of individuals with the focus being on determining whether or not a mental condition precludes the proceedings (Grossi et al., 2018). The basic idea is testing for possible impairments that would limit the ability or competency for the individual involved to stand trial. To assess cognitive impairment, it is important to engage in an in-depth evaluation of the individual focusing on several key areas. One of the key areas of consideration is the individual’s identity, which would determine the extent to which he or she is experiencing cognitive impairment. Persons with cognitive impairments often experience identity confusion that affects their ability to take responsibility for their actions (White et al., 2016). Another key area of assessment is memory. Loss of short or long-term memory serves as an indication of possible cognitive impairment that may affect one’s competency to stand trial. I would rely on several key factors to support my competency conclusion. The first factor is whether the individual is able to comprehend the proceedings that are being leveled against him or her. Lack of comprehension would serve as viable support for the conclusions made as part of determining one’s competency to stand trial. The second factor to consider when making the conclusions is judgment. Impaired judgment is one of the key aspects that define a lack of competency for an individual to stand trial, as this means that his or her actions may not have been intentional. The importance of whether a defendant may need to assist his or her own defense in a bid to be deemed as being competent is determined by whether or not the dependent is able to make viable decisions. For example, a mentally competent defendant, which is based on his or her decision-making capabilities, may be used as a defense for competency. Otherwise, using the defendant as part of defining competence would mean that he or she intends to use competency as a defense during the case. Putting people in mental institutions without their ability to explain themselves is somewhat similar to incarceration, as it means that they are held without their consent irrespective of their actions. The decision that one ought to be placed in a mental institution, based on his or her mental state, must be taken after the individual has explained to him or herself. That would allow them to have a clear understanding of the charges against them; thus, advancing their ability to reform irrespective of their mental state. Certain sectors of the population may be judged as being incompetent when compared to others based on their behaviors. The manner in which one behaves may serve as one of the factors that are likely to result in instances where one is judged as being incompetent. People often associated incompetence with behaviors; thus, highlighting the need for having to evaluate one’s behavior to determine whether he or she is incompetent when compared to others. 

References 

Grossi, L. M., Green, D., Schneider, M., Belfi, B., & Segal, S. (2018). Personality, psychiatric, and cognitive predictors of length of time for competency to stand trial restoration. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health ,  17 (2), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2018.1459964 

Romaine, C. L. R., Kemp, K., & DeMatteo, D. (2010). Evaluation of juvenile competency to proceed: Applying the Dusky standard.  Journal of forensic psychology practice ,  10 (1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228930903172973 

White, A. J., Batchelor, J., Meares, S., Pulman, S., & Howard, D. (2016). Fitness to stand trial in one Australian jurisdiction: the role of cognitive abilities, neurological dysfunction and psychiatric disorders.  Psychiatry, Psychology and Law ,  23 (4), 499-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1080152