{"title":"能力评估，多样化的能力，和一个专业标准","authors":"Jennifer Moore, Katherine M. Ramsland","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In June 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the implications of mental illness on a defendant's constitutional right to self-representation in the case of Indiana v. Edwards. This article examines the Court's holding in Edwards from both legal and psychological perspectives. Additionally, particular factors essential for establishing a specific standard of analysis to evaluate pro se competency are addressed.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"59 1","pages":"297 - 319"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Competence Assessment, Diverse Abilities, and a Pro Se Standard\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Moore, Katherine M. Ramsland\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/009318531103900207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In June 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the implications of mental illness on a defendant's constitutional right to self-representation in the case of Indiana v. Edwards. This article examines the Court's holding in Edwards from both legal and psychological perspectives. Additionally, particular factors essential for establishing a specific standard of analysis to evaluate pro se competency are addressed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of psychiatry & law\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"297 - 319\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of psychiatry & law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900207\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Competence Assessment, Diverse Abilities, and a Pro Se Standard
In June 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the implications of mental illness on a defendant's constitutional right to self-representation in the case of Indiana v. Edwards. This article examines the Court's holding in Edwards from both legal and psychological perspectives. Additionally, particular factors essential for establishing a specific standard of analysis to evaluate pro se competency are addressed.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
