NCJ Number
186439
Journal
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice Volume: 1 Issue: 1 Dated: 2001 Pages: 33-64
Date Published
2001
Length
32 pages
Annotation
This article examines the implications of four recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions for the practice of forensic mental health professionals.
Abstract
The Supreme Court cases reviewed are Godinez v. Moran (1993) (establishing a unitary standard for the determination of competency to plead guilty, competency to waive counsel, and competency to stand trial); Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) (upholding the constitutionality of one State's Sexually Violent Predator Act); Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey (1998) (ruling that the American with Disabilities Act applies to State prisons); and Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) (finding a qualified right to community treatment for certain persons institutionalized because of mental disability). These seemingly unrelated cases may have profound impacts on forensic mental health and correctional practices. "Godinez" makes it inevitable that more seriously mentally ill criminal defendants will be imprisoned; "Hendricks" makes it inevitable that more violent sexual offenders will be housed in forensic mental hospitals; "Yeskey" makes it inevitable that all aspects of institutionalization (whether in a facility labeled "criminal" or one labeled "mental health") will be subject to far more probing external scrutiny. "Olmstead" makes it inevitable that institutional decision making as to retention and release of certain patients will be examined more critically. This article discusses these cases, explains their holdings, identifies the likely "ripple effects" of these holdings, and discusses their implications for forensic mental health professionals. 179 notes