A closer look at juvenile adjudicative competence: What is fundamentally fair?

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen Kemp ◽  
Jamison Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Adjudicative Competence

The Relationship between Cognitive Functioning and Adjudicative Competence

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth Caillouet ◽  
Jesse Brand ◽  
Bernice Marcopulos ◽  
Julie-Ann Kent
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Functioning ◽  
Adjudicative Competence ◽  
The Relationship

Feigning in adjudicative competence evaluations

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 614-629 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherif Soliman ◽  
Phillip J. Resnick
Keyword(s):  
Adjudicative Competence

scholarly journals An update on outpatient competence restoration outcomes: The Washington DC Model

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 001-006
Author(s):  
Bell Reston N ◽  
Candilis Phillip J ◽  
Johnson Nicole R
Keyword(s):  
Poisson Regression ◽  
Regression Modeling ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Competence To Stand Trial ◽  
Adjudicative Competence ◽  
Competency Restoration ◽  
American Law ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Successive Restoration

This study provides an update to a previous study exploring time to restoration of adjudicative competence within an Outpatient Competence Restoration Program (OCRP). Authors examined the probability of restoration for individuals referred for outpatient competence restoration in the U.S. capital, and revisited the requirements of American Law, taking a closer look at how programmatic changes improve restoration and encourage adherence. Competence to stand trial remains a critical screening function of the judicial system to ensure that defendants have a basic understanding of courtroom procedures. Competency restoration is therefore an attempt to protect both the integrity of the system and the rights of defendants. Aggregate data from the OCRP’s previous four years of competence restoration efforts were reviewed for demographic characteristics, restoration rates, and time to restoration. Poisson regression modeling identified probability differences in restoration between sequential restoration periods. Since our initial analysis, the DC OCRP has been successful in restoring 97 of 345 participants (28.1%), with referral rates increasing from year to year. 39.2% are now restored after the 3rd round of competency restoration. Poisson regression modeling of individuals attaining competence during six successive restoration periods showed that differences for the first five rounds of restoration were not statistically significant (p = 0.418). In the 6th round, however, the difference in percentage of restored participants was statistically significant compared to previous rounds (irr = 0.32; p = 0.0001). We discuss the policy implications, especially those that suggest that the DC OCRP has improved its ability to restore competence beyond the 1st round of restoration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document