Competency Assessment

The delicacy of this type of competency assessment as well as the implications of the diagnosis and other clinical findings, means there are several legal and ethical points to consider. From an American Psychological Association standpoint, there are several issues, including consent, bias, and others. These considerations shift slightly as roles change from practitioner testifying based on their own evaluation of the defendant to the one testifying based on a review of the report.

To begin, there are several legal considerations to make on behalf of both roles. The case of Pate v. Robinson protects a defendant from trial and conviction, while incompetent, essentially emphasizing the court’s requirement for evaluation when a concern for competency arises (1966). This still, of course, leaves questions regarding the admissibility standards of the evaluations and the

Edwards, the appellate cautioned for the use of multiple measures in determining competency, adding a further stipulation on the overall evaluation plan (2008). This is also in line with Specialty Guideline for Forensic Psychology 9.02, which stresses the use of multiple sources of information (American Psychological Association, 2013). In line with the theme of assessment standards, Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996) places the standard of proof for incompetency at clear and convincing. Meaning the evidence must make a firm and reasonable argument supporting the belief. The evidence found that Mr. Bumble’s condition could improve with medication, there remains the issue of whether he will consent to treatment. Given the concern of violence on behalf of Mr. Bumble, the criteria for forced treatment and medication set in Riggins v. Nevada is most applicable. Case law established in response to this case states that psychotropic medication, such as that used to treat schizophrenia, can be mandated if there is reasonable concern for the safety of the defendant or others (Riggins v. Nevada,