Synopsis of the Article
The aim of the article is to investigate the claim that joint assessments of aptitude to stand trial and mental situation during an offense are widespread practices, which are implicitly assumed not to share any relationship with the psycho-legal opinions. My selected topic is the need for integrating CST and MSO. CST stands for Competency to Stand Trial while MSO refers to Mental State at the Time of the Offense. The article selected is directly related to the topic. Therefore, the motivation of the article and topic selected are heading in the same direction.
The report comprises an in-depth research that mostly relates to the predictors of an individual’s incompetency to withstand the judicial proceedings or insanity during the crime. According to the reviewed studies, these characteristics include referral source, the demographics, clinical aspects, offense, and evaluator characteristics. Both primary and secondary data was used in the study. The secondary data was obtained through an extensive review of different literature. On the other hand, primary data was collected from a sample of 5,731 forensic assessments, which were conducted over a span of seventeen years. It was concluded that the value attached to the evaluation structure of MOS and CST is greater when compared to the commonly assumed forensic practice. The authors concluded that the evaluation structure is more likely to inform the evaluators’ clinical processes.
Review and Critique of the Article
One of the main strengths of the article is in the way the authors use reputable and current sources. Ideally, most of the references relate closely to the criminal justice field, and they address the various dimensions of the topic. The relevance of the references is enhanced by the fact that they are scholarly resources drawn from credible journals. Furthermore, the researchers provide their digital object identifiers to prove their existence. For each reference, the authors are experts in the particular fields or topic areas, which demonstrate that the resources are reliable. The articles are highly valid as they present the very knowledge that the researchers in the study under question seek.
It is clear that the article is expertly written. Primarily, the topic is brief and to the point; therefore, a reader will have an overview of the ideas to expect. Besides, the researchers set out a succinct purpose of the study and the method through which data is collected and analysed. Moreover, the article presents the findings and conclusions in a very precise and comprehensive manner. The use of terminologies also defines the appropriateness of the articles. Therefore, the authors try to keep their explanations simple and concise. In sections that they use terminology or phrase that is pertinent to the criminal justice area, they reflect on it in a way that all the readers will understand. Therefore, the study is both reflective and thoughtful.
However, several limitations confronted the researchers. Primarily, it was not possible to access the differences in opinions of the sample due to their variability. Secondly, a broad cross-section size was immense, and more resources were required to undertake surveys. Therefore, it was possible that the influence of confounds such as MSO and CST on the study’s outcomes was negated.
I firmly believe that the article is crucial to the issue under consideration. While it produced critical knowledge, it provides an avenue for further inquiries, which might enhance the existing knowledge, thereby leading to further competencies in the criminal justice field.
Reference
Chauhan, P., Warren, J., Kois, L., & Wellbeloved-Stone, J. (2015). The significance of combining evaluations of competency to stand trial and sanity at the time of the offense. Psychology, public policy, and law, 21(1), 50.
