Competency to Proceed to Trial Evaluations and Rational Understanding

• Published date: 01 December 2015
• Date: 01 December 2015
• Author: Laurie Ragatz,Rozanna Tross,Michael J. Vitacco
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X14543768
• Subject Matter: Articles

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2015, Vol. 59(14) 1505 –1519

© The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X14543768

ijo.sagepub.com

Article

Competency to Proceed to

Trial Evaluations and Rational

Understanding

Laurie Ragatz1, Michael J. Vitacco1, and Rozanna Tross1

Abstract

In Dusky v. United States, the United States Supreme Court established “rational

understanding” as a necessary component of a defendant’s competency to stand

trial. Yet, rational understanding has engendered misunderstanding, stemming from

inconsistent court rulings and lack of systematic attention given to definitions of

rationality. The purpose of this article is to assist with the conceptualization of

rational understanding as it relates to competency to proceed to trial. This will be

accomplished through a review of legal decisions and scholarly papers that provide

various definitions of rationality. We discuss the suitability of standardized instruments

of competency and how they may assist in providing a valid metric for evaluating

rational abilities. We also provide discussion of how case law, in conjunction with

psycholegal research, can be used to gain nuanced insight into operationalizations

of rational understanding. By gaining a thorough understanding of rationality in

competency to proceed to trial evaluations, clinicians may improve on the quality and

foundation of their evaluations.

Keywords

rational understanding, competency to stand trial, restoration of competency

Addressing the Rational Understanding Prong in

Competency to Proceed to Trial Assessments

In the United States, case law dealing with issue of competency to proceed to trial has

focused on fundamental fairness, which is provided by the procedural and substantive

1Georgia Regents University, Augusta, USA

Corresponding Author:

Michael J. Vitacco, Department of Psychiatry and Health Behavior, Georgia Regents University, 3405

Mike Padgett Highway, Augusta, GA 30906, USA.

Email: mvitacco@gru.edu

543768IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X14543768International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyRagatz et al.

research-article2014