Application: Competence to Stand Trial and the Insanity Defense

Forensic psychologists deal with two particularly controversial issues: judging whether a defendant is competent to stand trial and whether a defendant was legally insane at the time he or she committed an offense. Both issues require evaluations of the defendant's mental state. A defendant is deemed competent to stand trial if he or she has the ability to function with full awareness and understanding in a trial. If a defendant cannot assist in his or her own defense, or does not understand the legal proceedings, he or she usually is declared incompetent. How does a forensic psychologist determine a defendant's mental competence? Does mental illness or mental retardation automatically signify a defendant is incompetent? What if a defendant is competent with medication, but incompetent without it?

The insanity defense also raises a number of controversial issues. A successful insanity defense proves that a defendant was unable to distinguish right from wrong or understand the consequences of his or her actions. This defense usually stirs fierce debate because it is difficult to assess insanity, especially at the time of the crime, which could have been months or years before the trial.
For this assignment, review the Week 4 Application Case Study in the Learning Resources and analyze whether the insanity defense or a claim of incompetence to stand trial might be more successful in this case. This assignment is due by Day 7 of Week 5. You should begin analyzing the case now to submit the assignment by next week.

To prepare for this Assignment:

• Review Chapters 8 and 9 in your course text, Forensic and Legal Psychology, and focus on the issues surrounding competence to stand trial and the insanity defense. Also consider criteria psychologists frequently use to determine whether a defendant is competent to stand trial or legally insane.

• Review the Week 4 Application Case Study provided in this week's Learning Resources

• Search the Walden Library, and select one peer-reviewed article related to competency to stand trial and one peer-reviewed article related to the insanity defense.

The Assignment (3-page minimum):

• Review the Week 4 Application Case Study provided in this week's Learning Resources, and identify factors in this case that might be relevant to the defendant's competence to stand trial or use of the insanity defense.

• Identify circumstances under which a defendant might be found incompetent to stand trial and the circumstances that might warrant the insanity defense.

• Explain whether or not the insanity defense might be successful in the case.

• Make sure you briefly summarize both articles you selected from the Walden Library, and apply the findings to this case.

• Explain whether or not the claim for incompetence to stand trial might be successful in the case.

• Be sure to provide references in APA format for the two peer-reviewed articles you selected from the current literature.

Application Case Study

One weekday morning, Lisa Miller shot and murdered her husband as he was getting ready for work. Afterwards, she called the police. When the police arrived, Miller calmly told them that she had killed her husband. Authorities reported that she did not resist arrest.

The Defendant's History

Miller and her husband were deeply devoted Christians. In 1999, Miller attempted suicide twice and had two psychiatric hospitalizations. She was diagnosed with major depressive disorder with psychotic features. After her second hospitalization, her psychiatrist urged her husband to be cautious and stay alert to any changes in his wife's behavior. The psychiatrist warned Mr. Miller that, in the past, Mrs. Miller expressed delusions involving her husband and threatening his safety. Nevertheless, at that time, the psychiatrist did not believe that Mrs. Miller was a threat to herself or to others, nor did he believe that she was experiencing any psychotic symptoms.

Two days later, she killed her husband.

After the Arrest

After her arrest, Miller told the jail psychiatrist that her husband was "working for the devil." She also admitted to the psychiatrist that she had been thinking about killing her husband for two years. While awaiting trial in jail, Miller claimed she heard a voice that told her to get a knife. She also claimed to have seen satanic images. Miller, however, did not believe she was mentally ill or depressed.

The Trial

Miller's trial began about eight months after the murder. By that time, Miller was in treatment and receiving medication. At the trial, Miller appeared despondent and tired, but also calm and aware. The psychiatrist treating Miller prior to her crime testified that he had diagnosed her condition as "depression with psychotic features," although he did not notice any indication of psychosis two days before she killed her husband.

Two other psychiatrists took the stand. For the defense, Dr. Resnick testified that Miller had a history of delusions and was "driven by" them. In interviews with the defendant five days after the crime, he described her as being in a "deep state of psychosis." In his professional opinion, before she committed the murder, she had to have been delusional for some time. He also was surprised that no one had properly identified the risk.

Dr. Dietz testified for the prosecution. He acknowledged that Miller was mentally ill, but argued that she was able to recognize right from wrong. To prove his point, he stated that in interviews with the defendant after the murder she described her act as "a sin" and because of it, she realized she could receive the death penalty. He also noted that in a statement to authorities she admitted contemplating the murder of her husband for years, although she had kept her intentions secret. In Dietz's professional opinion, Miller was legally sane.