Future policy must take both findings into account.
The Network developed a simple interview that can identify patients who need help with decision making. Adjudicative competence. The findings here closely paralleled those for treatment competence — including the development of a user-friendly assessment tool. Furthermore, a person may be competent for some legal purposes but not for others. Most importantly, the empirical evidence is now available to inform judges and legislators in setting standards for adjudicative competence.
Risk assessment. The Network developed a new, significantly more accurate approach to assessing the risk of violence among patients hospitalized in acute care psychiatric facilities.
This software-based instrument measures a wide variety of factors, from prior violence and antisocial behavior to substance abuse, anger, and childhood experience of abuse. It is currently being validated in studies throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia. Overall, the Network found that people discharged from a psychiatric hospital are generally at the same risk of violence as others in their community, but that substance abuse greatly increases their risk of violent behavior.
These instruments have been translated into many languages and are now being used by other researchers in studies of coercion around the world. MacArthur brings together researchers from a spectrum of disciplines, perspectives and methods to explore issues that will help inform policy and practice. Objectives Mental health law has undergone major developments in recent years, including landmark judicial decisions, dramatic legislative initiatives, and the publication of professional standards and guidelines.
Approach The Network included experts from the fields of clinical, developmental, and social psychology; sociology; psychiatry; law; and mental health administration and policy. Major Findings and Implications Treatment competence. Contact Information View network website.
Competence to stand trial: An overview Hoge SK - Indian J Psychiatry
Trombetta United States v. Bagley Arizona v. Youngblood Kyles v. Whitley Wood v. Bartholomew Strickler v. Greene United States v. Ruiz Illinois v. Fisher Banks v. Dretke Youngblood v. West Virginia Cone v. Bell Smith v.
- Adjudicative Competence - The MacArthur Studies | Norman Poythress | Springer!
- Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil.
- Adolescents' Competence to Stand Trial - MacArthur Juvenile Competence Study - IssueLab.
- Adjudicative competence - Wikipedia;
- Thomas OBurk!
- Research Network on Mental Health & the Law!
- Word Structure (Language Workbooks).
Cain Mental competence. Bishop v. United States Dusky v.
United States Pate v. Robinson Drope v. Missouri Riggins v. Nevada Medina v. California Godinez v. Moran Cooper v.
Oklahoma Sell v. United States Indiana v. Edwards Prosecutorial misconduct. Mooney v.
- Agent-Based Approaches in Economic and Social Complex Systems V: Post-Proceedings of The AESCS International Workshop 2007 (Springer Series on Agent Based Social Systems) (v. 5).
- Gaia in Turmoil: Climate Change, Biodepletion, and Earth Ethics in an Age of Crisis?
- Refine your editions:.
- Browse more videos;
- Adjudicative Competence Study;
- Korean Language Guide.
Holohan Hysler v. Florida Pyle v. Kansas New York ex rel.
Whitman v. Wilson White v. Ragen Mesarosh v. United States Alcorta v. Texas Napue v. Illinois Categories : Mental health law Forensic psychology Adjudicative competence case law Mental health stubs Legal terminology stubs. Hidden categories: CS1 errors: deprecated parameters Articles with limited geographic scope from March All stub articles. Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history.