![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Competency to stand trial (CST) is related to the defendant's capacity to engage in a satisfactory level of participation in the court process. While the extant studies focus mainly on assessment-related issues such as assessment methods, guidelines for competency evaluations, and quality of competency evaluations, another area of considerable interest is the indicators of CST as well as legal decision-making relating to CST. This study canvasses some proposed indicators of CST from the literature and examines whether these psycho-legal abilities are relevant to finding a defendant incompetent to stand trial. Secondly, the study investigates factors likely to influence legal decision-making in competency determination. Using a cross-sectional survey and a self-report methodology, 197 participants from a legal Juris Doctoral course responded to measures of CST, punitiveness, and legal authoritarianism, anti-authoritarianism and egalitarianism. The results show that the majority of the items canvassed from the literature are considered relevant in finding the defendant incompetent to stand trial. With respect to factors influencing competent decision-making, females are more likely to regard defendants as incompetent. Additionally, participants with strong punishment-oriented attitudes (i.e. legal authoritarianism and punitiveness) are significantly more likely to find the defendant competent to stand trial, as opposed to those high in non-punishment-oriented attitudes (i.e. anti-authoritarianism and egalitarianism). The study concludes that biased legal decision-making can occur regardless of the background of the decision-makers, in this case participants undergoing legal training. The findings are discussed and implications of the study are proposed.