Alberto L. Choy MD FRCPC
Psychology 344
Forensic Psychology
Fall 2003
University of Toronto, Mississauga

 Forensic Psychology


Lawrence S. Wrightsman
Chapter 10 (pp. 224 - 230)
 The Criminal Code of Canada
 ss. 672.22-33

 Reasons for assessments of fitness
 Ways to assess fitness
 Canada: definition of fitness

 competency to stand trial / fitness to stand trial

 the ability to understand the ability to defend oneself
 2-8% of felons in the USA assessed for fitness

 English common law (1763):
 allowed for (court proceedings) and execution to be stayed if “be(came) absolutely mad”
 Modern US law:
 Dusky vs. United States (1960)
 but terms poorly defined - not consistent

 a mental health perspective: psychosis = unfit not a legal perspective

Approaches to determining fitness
 Dusky: mental health perspective
 Further revisions:

 context / legal perspective - specificity:
“this specific crime, in these circumstances, with this lawyer”
 Further revisions in US and Canada (less specific, more functional)

 R. v. Taylor (1992)

“The test to be applied in determining D’s ability to communicate with counsel is one of limited cognitive capacity…It is not necessary that D be able to act in his/her own best interests.” C.C.C. s.2
 functional, not specific, less emphasis on medical



R. v. Whittle (1994)

“D need not have analytical ability, rather the mental capacity of an “operating mind”.”

D must be capable to communicate…to instruct counsel
 (D must) understand the function of counsel and that he or she may dispense with counsel even if it is not in D’s best interest
We will cover essential elements of fitness later

 C.C.C. ss. 672.22 - 33
 Presumption of fitness
 Who can raise the question of fitness
 When can fitness be raised

 at any point in trial / sentencing
 (fitness is dynamic)
 detainment continues
 location of assessment of fitness



 detention setting courts hospital outpatient facility

 cautions and warnings

“information from (competency) evaluations may not be used in the issue of determining guilt unless the defendant raises his mental state as evidence at the trial or sentencing proceedings”

 content of the assessment of fitness:
 1. general understanding of legal issues
 charges / phase in proceedings



 personnel in the court pleas available witnesses / oath potential outcomes



2. specific understanding of legal issues


 phase in proceedings outcomes of delays outcomes of trial
3. ability (to defend self)

 ability to communicate with counsel to direct defense

 evidence / report
 decision by the Court
 if unfit:

 return treatment order
 likely to be fit in specified time


 benefits outweigh the risks the least intrusive option medication and/or training

 if still unfit:


Ontario Review Board - (unfit)
Prima Facie case to be made every two years
 if becomes fit at a later time:
 back to criminal proceeding

 variable
 Illinois: provisional trial

 2-8% of felons in the US sent for assessment
 10-30% of those referred were found incompetent


11% in Canada other reasons for “fitness assessment”

 screening instruments


Competency Screening Test (CST)
 high false positive rate
Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI)
 13 items, reliability and validity to come

 The Fitness Interview Test (FIT-R)
 Canadian
 good screening tool

 a. the nature and the object of the proceedings or factual knowledge of criminal procedure b. possible consequences of the proceedings or appreciate personal involvement and importance of
 c. ability to participate in the defense or communicate with counsel

 The Georgia Court Competency Test
(GCCT)


 visual task / pictorial representation reliable revisions
 others:
 specific populations

 MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool -
Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA)




Understanding of Trial/charges appreciation relevance of information logic / reasoning ability / decision making ability to make a choice
 congruent with other psychological issues
 scenarios

 Testamentary capacity:
 wills, evidence
 Assessment of juveniles


Gault (1967), USA: same due process cognitive development

 age 14: ability to use logic special needs of juvenile defendants