Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 17 - Decision-Making About Restoration of Defendants Who Are Incompetent to Stand Trial

  • from Part II - Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
  • Edited by Monica K. Miller, University of Nevada, Reno, Logan A. Yelderman, Prairie View A & M University, Texas, Matthew T. Huss, Creighton University, Omaha, Jason A. Cantone, George Mason University, Virginia
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
    Published online:
    22 February 2024
    Print publication:
    29 February 2024, pp 259-273

  • Summary

    This chapter addresses decision-making about the restoration of defendants who are adjudicated as incompetent to stand trial (IST) in an era in which there has been deemed a competency crisis that the number of impacted defendants has grown significantly. It describes the rationale for the importance of this topic and associated decisions, and provides the context for such decisions: hospital, jail, and outpatient. After reviewing the existing scientific literature on the frequency of restoration decisions and the duration and outcomes of relevant interventions, it describes a proposal for an approach to evaluating restorability that is more consistent with the available scientific evidence and a better fit for clinical and forensic practice. The chapter concludes with a more detailed discussion of both clinical and legal decisions in this area, elaborating on why this approach appears to offer a better fit for practice. Implications for future research, clinical and legal decision-making, and bias reduction are described.