|
COMPLEX ISSUES ABOUT MENTALLY RETARDED DEFENDANTS BY Taiping Ho*, Ph.D. October, 2003 Keywords: Mentally Retarded Defendant, Mental Retardation, Mentally Retarded Defendant Program, Retarded Criminals INTRODUCTION The mentally retarded criminal defendant has presented unique and complex challenges to the criminal justice system in terms of criminal proceedings (e.g., competency to stand trial) and adjudications (e.g., punishment versus treatment). The issue of the execution of a mentally retarded criminal, in the case of Atkins v. Virginia (2002), has intensified the debates about constitutional protections for retarded criminals. The U.S. Supreme Court has adjudicated that "executions of mentally retarded criminals are cruel and unusual punishments prohibited by the Eighth Amendment." Prior to Atkins, 35 convicted criminals, who were or were suspected of being mentally retarded, had been executed in the United States since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 (Keyes et al., 1997). As the public outcry about executing mentally retarded criminals has increased, many states, such as the State of Georgia, have legislated several specific provisions to protect mentally retarded criminals in the criminal proceedings and sentencing as well. The U.S. Supreme Court indicates, in Atkins, that "the large number of States prohibiting the execution of mentally retarded persons provides powerful evidence that today society views mentally retarded offenders as categorically less culpable than the average criminal." The Court clearly specifies that criminal defendants' mental retardation "do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but diminish their personal culpability." The Court further states that "mentally retarded defendants in the aggregate face a special risk of wrongful execution because of the possibility that they will unwittingly confess to crimes they do not commit, their lesser ability to give their counsel meaningful assistance, and the facts that they are typically poor witnesses and that their demeanor may create an unwarranted impression of lack of remorse for their crimes." These issues simply demonstrate complexities of legal proceedings that arise while retarded offenders have contact with the criminal justice system. ISSUES ABOUT MENTALLY RETARDED DEFENDANTS The American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) (2002) defines mental retardation as a disability, which is characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior or skills prior to age 18. Specifically, an IQ score below the level of 70-75 is considered as an important indicator of mental retardation. Deficiency in adaptive behavior is also a contributing factor in determining mental retardation. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) adopts a similar definition of mental retardation as the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR). The American Psychiatric Association (2000) specifies three main criteria for determining mental retardation: (1) subaverage general intellectual functioning; (2) significant limitations in adaptive functioning in at least two of the following skill areas (communication, self‑care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self‑direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety); and (3) the onset before age 18. Misperceptions about mentally retarded persons or criminal offenders are myriad. For example, mentally retarded criminal offenders are frequently portrayed as functionallyilliterate, aggressive, violent, or promiscuous (Baroff, 1986; Conley et al., 1992; Villeneuve and Quinsey, 1995). Researchers (Klassen and O'Connor, 1988; Martell, 1991) found that mentally ill persons are likely involved in violent behavior. Shapiro (1986), for example, found that one third of correctional inmates in the study group, who were diagnosed as mentally retarded, were convicted with sex-related crimes. However, such a relationship between violent behavior and mental retardation has not been empirically sustained. The American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) (2001) states that "people with mental retardation are often impulsive, which may result in acts that people of average abilities could refrain from." The AAMR (2001) further indicates that mentally retarded persons are likely to have low self-esteem, poor tolerance, be easily influenced by others, and be eager to please authority such as the police. Consequently, mentally retarded criminal offenders are easily caught and convicted once they have contact with the criminal justice system. Due to a lack of standardized screening processes across jurisdictions, measuring the prevalence rate of the mentally retarded inmates in correctional institutions is extremely difficult. For example, Denkowski and Kenkowski (1985) found that the proportion of prison inmates who were deemed as mentally retarded could range from 0.2 percent in the State of South Dakota to 19.1 percent in the State of Louisiana. However, a disproportionate number of mentally retarded inmates are racial minority members, African American in particular (Brown and Courtless, 1968; Hochstedler, 1987; McGee and Menolascino, 1992; Steiner, 1984). However, Garcia and Steele (1988) and Noble and Conley (1992) suspected that the overrepresentation of racial minority retarded inmates might also result from the assessment processes. In other words, African American offenders were more likely to be assessed as mentally retarded than Caucasian offenders due to a low IQ score during the assessment processes. How to determine whether or not a mentally retarded defendant is competent to stand trial is one of the most complex legal issues in the criminal justice system. As the U.S. Supreme Court mandates, in the case of Dusky v. United States (1960), the determination of competency to stand trial requires the State to assess whether the defendant has a rational as well as factual understanding of the nature and consequences of criminal proceedings against him or her, or the ability to assist his or her legal counsel for the defense. Undoubtedly, the degree of mental retardation becomes a crucial factor in determining a retarded defendant's capability to proceed to criminal proceedings. However, researchers (Bock, 1994; Hall, 1992; Rutherford et al., 1985) questioned the subjectivity of diagnostic instruments in measuring mental retardation and the inconsistency of judicial decisions regarding competency to stand trial across different jurisdictions. Quite often, psychiatric diagnoses of mental deficits and competency to stand trial can be significantly different among psychologists or psychiatrists. Nevertheless, trial judges heavily rely upon psychologists' competency assessments to judicially determine competency status among mentally retarded criminal defendants. In other words, competency to stand trial is a legal term that has been assimilated into psychiatric and medical assessments. THE PRESENT STUDY'S FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS Focuses of Study Due to the confidential nature of medical and psychological information of mentally retarded defendants, previous researches on retarded defendants' characteristics such as competency to stand trial were considerably limited. Fortunately, the present researcher was granted the ability to review retarded defendants' archives (1977-91) such as psychological assessments or legal adjudications at the Mentally Retarded Defendant Program (MRDP), Florida State Hospital. The MRDP is a forensic correctional institution which is designed to provide developmental services to adult criminal retarded defendants and to evaluate their competency to stand trial. Therefore, the MRDP offers a variety of treatment and competency training programs such as social skills or trial competency training programs. Each retarded defendant will be evaluated by MRDP psychologists within a 6-month period (i.e., 6-month competency evaluation). A 12-month or 24-month competency evaluation must be conducted if MRDP psychologists evaluate the defendant as incompetent to stand trial and the judge agree with the MRDP psychologists' competency assessment. Under Florida statutes (i.e., 916.303) mandate, the criminal charges against any defendant, who is adjudicated as incompetent to proceed trial proceedings due to mental retardation, shall be dismissed if the defendant remains incompetent to stand trial after 2 years of involuntary commitment to MRDP, unless the court can specify its reasons for believing that the defendant will become competent to stand trial within the foreseeable future. Data for the present analyses were obtained through archival review of MRDP competency reports (with individual demographic information), court orders and/or adjudications, psychological assessments and reports (prior to admission to MRDP), police reports, and social work reports (if available). In addition to identifying MRDP defendants' characteristics, this study intended to explore potentially contributing factors in determining mental retardation, competency to stand trial, and the relationship between mental retardation and criminality. The consensus between MRDP psychologists' competency evaluations and the trial judges' competency adjudications was also carefully examined in this study. Characteristics of MRDP Defendants Between 1977 and 1991, 303 "retarded" defendants were admitted to and discharged from MRDP. Of those 303 defendants, 15 defendants were excluded due to insufficient information about competency assessments or demographic data. Therefore, a total of 288 MRDP defendants who were diagnosed as mentally retarded and were charged with felony crimes were included in this study. A majority of the MRDP retarded defendants were young, African American males, who were admitted to MRDP before age 30. Ninety-two percent (265) of the MRDP defendants were male, while only 23 defendants were female. This study group consisted of 198 African Americans, 84 Caucasians, and 6 Hispanics. The mean age at which defendants were involuntarily admitted to MRDP was 27.0 years old. This study's results revealed that parental supervision and care of retarded defendants, from childhood to adulthood, significantly declined. Approximately 52 percent (150) of defendants had parental care (both parents) when they were under age 12, but only 21 percent (60) of the defendants had such parental care when they turned into age 18. Even though 88 percent (254) had some educational experience, a vast majority of the defendants were enrolled in special education classes. As this study's results revealed, MRDP retarded defendants' schooling experience did not necessarily enhance their independent living skills or other adaptive behavior skills. About 112 MRDP defendants indicated that they had some work experience, but such employment was likely limited to part-time and income was minimal. Approximately 40 percent (114) of MRDP retarded defendants had experience of substance abuse, either drugs or alcohol. This study revealed that 152 of a total of 288 MRDP retarded defendants were diagnosed as or suspected of being mentally ill. A vast majority of those mentally ill defendants had psychiatric treatment prior to admission to MRDP. Meanwhile, 92 defendants had brain damage, 59 defendants were diagnosed as hyperactive, and 144 defendants had an injury to their bodies prior to admission to MRDP. Fifty-nine percent (171) of MRDP defendants had IQ scores in the range of 55-69; the mean IQ score of a total of 288 MRDP defendants was 57.1. There were 21 defendants whose deficits in adaptive behavior were identified as borderline, 121 defendants had mild deficit in adaptive behavior, 101 defendants had moderate deficit in adaptive behavior, and 40 defendants had either severe (38) or profound (2) deficit in adaptive behavior. Overall, 68 percent of the MRDP defendants were diagnosed as mildly retarded. Criminality and Retardation This study found that MRDP defendants were likely to have contact with the criminal justice system at an early age; the mean age of first arrest for criminal offenses was 20.4 years old. Almost half of MRDP defendants were repeat offenders. Based upon legal documents, 52 percent (150) of 288 MRDP retarded defendants were charged with violent crimes such as rape or assault. Based upon known criminal charges (n=943) against 288 MRDP retarded defendants, a significant number of defendants were charged with serious crimes such as murder (25), assault or battery (112), robbery (52), or kidnapping (8). Most surprisingly, more than 53 percent (154) of defendants were charged with sex-related crimes such as rape (113) or lewd behavior (41). Based upon available police records or court documentation, this study revealed that approximately 59 percent of victims of sex-related crimes committed by MRDP defendants were minors. This study found that retarded defendants were likely involved in a variety of property-related crimes such as burglary (177), theft (182), or arson (51). This study found that there was no statistical correlation between criminality and retardation among MRDP mentally retarded criminal defendants. Meanwhile, the violent nature of criminality was not parallel with the severity of mental retardation. A bivariate analysis showed a statistically insignificant correlation between criminality and retardation (Pearson Chi-Square = .812; significance level = .937). For example, this study also revealed that there were no significant differences in a variety of MRDP defendants' demographic, psychiatric, and legal characteristics between retarded "sex" defendants and other retarded defendants. Regardless of the type of criminal charges, mentally retarded sex defendants were indistinguishable from other retarded defendants in terms of mental retardation, deficit in adaptive behavior, or IQ score. In sum, persons with mental retardation are not necessarily mean that they are prone to criminal activities. Competency to Stand Trial Overall, 23 percent (65) of a total of 288 MRDP retarded defendants were evaluated as "competent to stand trial" by MRDP psychologists and staffs during the period of 1977-91. This study's results showed that defendants' IQ scores and deficits in adaptive behavior were two major contributing factors in determining defendants' competency to stand trial by the MRDP psychologists. However, only 7 MRDP retarded defendants, among 65 defendants who were assessed as competent to stand trial by MRDP psychologists, were legally adjudicated as "competent to stand trial" by the trial judges. A vast majority of MRDP defendants were adjudicated as "incompetent to stand trial" and their criminal charges were subsequently dismissed. Regardless of discrepancy between MRDP psychologists' competency assessments and judges' competency adjudications, this study found that the judges' decisions on competency to stand trial were highly compatible with MRDP psychologists' evaluations. The concordance rate between judges' decisions and MRDP psychologists' evaluations on competency to stand trial was about 95 percent. Undoubtedly, determination of competency to stand trial is still highly subjective in the legal arena. It is reasonable to believe that the trial judges would heavily rely upon psychologists' assessments to legally adjudicate the issue of competency among mentally retarded criminal defendants. CONCLUSION: ADJUDICATIONS AND REMEDIES According to Florida statutes (i.e., 916.302), every defendant who is charged with a felony and who is found to be incompetent to proceed may be involuntarily committed for training upon a finding by the court of clear and convincing evidence that "the defendant is retarded or autistic," and "there is a substantial probability that the retardation or autism causing the defendant's incompetence will respond to training and the defendant will regain competency to proceed in the reasonably foreseeable future." Due to the severity of mental retardation and deficits in adaptive behavior, as this study's results indicated, a majority of retarded criminal defendants were likely deemed as "incompetent to stand trial" regardless of a variety of well-designed competency or social skills training programs. Furthermore, the coexistence of mental illness and mental retardation (dual diagnosis), a condition that may significantly complicate treatment to possibly restore their competency to stand trial, is frequently present among mentally retarded offenders. Justice Stevens, who delivered the court opinion in the case of Atkins v. Virginia (2002), indicated that: "Those mentally retarded persons who meet the law's requirements for criminal responsibilities should be tried and punished when they commit crimes." Justice Stevens further stated that because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct. Accordingly, handling of mentally retarded criminal offenders shall focus on preventive measures rather than legal sanctions. In doing so, the local, state, and federal governments should establish a comprehensive plan to continuously provide a variety of supports to mentally retarded persons from childhood to adulthood. For examples, a family with a mentally retarded child, from a poor family in particular, shall be included in the social welfare program to receive financial and medical assistance. The schools should be funded to provide a supplemental curriculum for mentally retarded children in order to enhance their educational experience and skills in adaptive behavior. The local governments also need to provide sufficient training for criminal justice professionals (i.e., police officers, prosecutors, public defenders, jailers, correctional officers, and probation officers) to effectively cope with mentally retarded criminal offenders when they have contact with the criminal justice system. Social charity organizations may become an essential support system to provide follow-up voluntary services for mentally retarded persons in order to prevent them from having further contact with the criminal justice system.
REFERENCES American Association on Mental Retardation. (2002). Definition of mental retardation. URL Http://www.aamr.org/Policies/faq_mental_retardation.shtml -----. (2001). Fact sheet: The death penalty. URL Http://www.aamr.org/Policies/faq_death_penalty.shtml American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Atkins v. Virginia, 000 U.S. 00-8452 (2002). Baroff, G. (1986). Mental retardation: Nature, cause, and management. New York: Hemisphere. Bock, B.R. (1994). Fourteenth Amendment--the standard of mental competency to waive constitutional rights versus the competency standard to stand trial. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 84, 883-914. Brown, B., & Courtless, T. (1968). The mentally retarded in penal and correctional institutions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 124, 1164-1170. Conley, R., Luckasson, R., & Bouthilet, G. (1992). The criminal justice system and mental retardation: Defendants and victims. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes. Denkowski, G.C., & Denkowski, K.M. (1985). The mentally retarded offender in the state prison system: Identification, prevalence, adjustment, and rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 55-70. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). Garcia, S., & Steele, H. (1998). Mentally retarded offenders in the criminal justice and mental retardation services systems in Florida: Philosophical, placement, and treatment issues. Arkansas Law Review, 41, 809-859. Hall, J. (1992). Correctional services for inmates with mental retardation: Challenge or catastrophe? In R. Conley, R. Luckasson, & G. Bouthilet (Eds.), The criminal justice system and mental retardation. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes. Hochstedler, E. (1987). Twice-cursed: The mentally disordered defendant. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 251-267. Keyes, D., Edwards, W., & Perske, R. (1997). People with mental retardation are dying, legally. Mental Retardation, 35, 59-63. Klassen, D., & O'Connor, W. (1988). Crime, inpatient admissions, and violence among male mental patients. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 11, 305-312. Martell, D. (1991). Homeless mentally disordered offenders and violent crimes. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 333-347. McGee, J., & Menolascino, F. (1992). The evaluation of defendants with mental retardation in the criminal justice system. In R. Conley, R. Luckasson, & G. Bouthilet (Eds.), The criminal justice system and mental retardation. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes. Noble, J., & Conley, R. (1992). Toward an epideminology of relevant attributes. In R. Conley, R. Luckasson, & G. Bouthilet (Eds.), The criminal justice system and mental retardation. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes. Rutherford, R., Nelson, C., & Wolford, B. (1985). Special education in the most restrictive environment: Correctional special education. Journal of Special Education, 19, 59-71. Shapiro, S. (1986). Delinquent and disturbed behavior within the field of mental deficiency. In A. deReuck & R. Porter (Eds.), The mentally abnormal offender. New York: Grune. Steiner, J. (1984). Group counseling with retarded offenders. Social Work, 29, 181-182. Villeneuve, D., & Quinsey, V. (1995). Predictors of general and violent recidivism among mentally disordered inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 397-410. *Taiping Ho is Associate Professor at the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Ball State University. Phone:
765-285-5983 This page available at: |