Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law最新文献

During the COVID-19 pandemic, problem-solving courts adopted virtual hearings. We conducted an online nationwide survey with a convenience sample of court staff to elicit their perceptions of court participants' attendance, engagement, willingness to talk, and ability to form connection with judges during in-person versus virtual hearings. Sign tests compared ordinal ratings for perceptions of court participant outcomes during in-person versus virtual hearing modalities, and for audiovisual technology versus audio-only technology. The final analysis included 146 staff. Staff felt that during in-person hearings judges could form closer relationships with participants, quality of information exchanged was higher, and participants were more willing to talk. Staff rated attendance as high regardless of the modality. Staff felt participant engagement was higher with audiovisual technology than audio-only technology. Our results suggest that staff have concerns about effects of virtual hearings on court participant engagement and ability to form relationships with judges. Courts should address these potential negative effects of virtual hearings. We are concerned that staff perceived participants more negatively when participants used audio-only versus audiovisual technology, because technology access could be associated with participant demographic characteristics. Further research is needed to examine court participant perceptions and outcomes.

The practice of forensic psychiatry requires balance; the forensic psychiatrist encounters the need for balance routinely and in a variety of areas. Balance is necessary for sound judgment and objectivity when striving for excellence in the field. It is also necessary to effectively balance a career in forensic psychiatry with one's personal life. The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL) has stressed the virtue of balance in the preamble of its ethics guidelines, noting the importance of balancing competing obligations to the individual and society. Keeping in mind the importance of balance will assist forensic psychiatry with the many challenges of a postinternet era, such as rapidly changing technology, culture, and society. A substantial challenge for forensic psychiatry, now and in the future, involves data overflow and the so-called big data explosion. Information now flows too fast and in such vast amounts that a single individual can no longer keep pace. Balance may be pursued by adapting and leveraging certain skills to confront these challenges more effectively. The current inflection point of rapid technological, social, and cultural change, stresses the importance of balance through teamwork, technology, and prioritizing civil discourse.

The challenge of achieving an acceptable balance between respecting the autonomy of criminal defendants by allowing them to self-represent, and protecting the integrity of the judicial process by limiting this right when mental illness impedes such efforts, has been longstanding. Although courts have long tended to allow self-representation, a recognized ability of states to limit such rights was articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Indiana v. Edwards (2008). Because Edwards outlined no specific test for representational competence, numerous scholars have proposed criteria over the last 15 years, with variable frameworks and points of emphasis. We synthesized the published literature since Edwards on the evaluation of pro se competence. A search of electronic databases was conducted using relevant search terms, yielding 31 identified articles after review of titles, abstracts, full-text articles, and reference lists. Overall, in evaluating pro se competence, experts advise assessing whether a defendant can demonstrate the cognitive, communicative, and emotional abilities to conduct an adequate defense, engage in constructive social intercourse, provide a rational reason for pursuing self-representation, and willingly work with standby counsel. Using these factors, we propose a representational competence standard that balances defendant autonomy with court paternalism. Implications for future research are discussed.

Defendants who are facing criminal charges in the United States have a constitutional right to be present at trial. This right can be voluntarily waived; for such a waiver to be valid, the defendant must be competent to waive the right to be present at trial. There have been several cases where a defendant is absent from trial because of a suicide attempt, and in these cases the courts must determine whether it is necessary to pause the criminal trial to allow for a competence hearing to take place. The U.S. Supreme Court offered guidance on this matter in its ruling in Drope v. Missouri; however, the Court did not clearly define the threshold for requiring a competence hearing when defendants attempt suicide during trial. Subsequent judicial rulings have provided insights into how courts might proceed when a criminal defendant is absent from trial following a suicide attempt. This topic has relevance to forensic psychiatry, as forensic psychiatrists may be called upon to participate in evaluations of adjudicative competence in these scenarios.

As racial influences on forensic outcomes are identified in every aspect of practice, scholars are exploring methods to disentangle race from its historical, economic, and attitudinal antecedents. Because jurisdictions vary in these influences, definitions and data may differ among them, creating inconsistencies in analysis and policy. This retrospective database review compared differences in racial outcomes among 200 pretrial defendants, 160 Black and 40 White, exploring a wide range of socioeconomic, clinical, and forensic influences before, during, and after hospitalization. Because of the tight relationship of socioeconomic factors and race, investigators hypothesized that it would be difficult to distinguish racial influences alone. Using a confirmatory approach to data collection and a statistical analysis based in logistic regression, only differences in referral for psychological testing were identified. Application of this method based on local demographics and culture may prove useful for institutions interested in evaluating racial influences on forensic outcomes.

Minority and Indigenous populations have disproportionate representation within forensic mental health services. Social determinants of health and systemic discrimination have contributed to the difficulties these populations have in accessing care, as well as significant differences in care trajectories. In addition, staffing and structural equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) challenges permeate forensic systems as in other health care settings. There is little literature to guide forensic mental health services in how best to provide equitable, diverse, and inclusive practices for patients, families, and staff. The forensic service at a major urban center in the Canadian province of Ontario has adapted an EDI framework to describe the processes employed to organize and integrate EDI principles and initiatives within a culture of learning and continuous improvement. This Forensic EDI Framework is composed of six domains: Organizational Commitment, Staff/Workforce Competencies, Service Access and Delivery, Promoting Responsiveness, Community Outreach, and Data Collection. Initiatives within each of these domains form the foundation of a sustainable platform for forensic service EDI practices that will promote lasting change.

Systemic change requires complex conceptual and practical efforts from organizations and individuals alike. In forensic psychiatry, improving the experiences of marginalized groups respects the personhood and dignity of those who have been neglected over time and promises improvements in outcomes that have been affected by the unevenness of history. Specific plans for education, monitoring, and improvement consequently call for related frameworks in professional ethics and research to lead and accompany them. The professional ethics of forensic practice, for example, can now consider years of writing that advance traditional precepts toward dignity, social purpose, truth, and human rights. Research design can improve the representativeness of samples, the methods that assess inequity, and the survey construction that populates both quality improvement and academic research. Responding to the growing understanding of forensic inequity will require both a new ethic and a new science.