Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 48 - Restoration

  • from Part VI - Perspectives from the Field
  • Edited by Monica K. Miller, University of Nevada, Reno, Logan A. Yelderman, Prairie View A & M University, Texas, Matthew T. Huss, Creighton University, Omaha, Jason A. Cantone, George Mason University, Virginia
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
    Published online:
    22 February 2024
    Print publication:
    29 February 2024, pp 696-701

  • Summary

    Once a defendant is deemed incompetent to stand trial (IST), the evaluator must indicate whether restoration can occur within the foreseeable future. This restoration must occur in a “reasonable” – but undefined – period. If restorable and the defendant is in the community, an outpatient restoration program might be utilized but only if the defendant does not constitute a physical threat to the community. If the defendant is incarcerated, the restoration process will likely occur in a secure hospital setting or a jail setting. Unfortunately, not every jurisdiction has an outpatient restoration program or a jail restoration program. The nature of the crime often creates what I call a “justice” bias toward competency or the restoration process. The more heinous the crime the more likely the defendant is to be competent or IST but restorable.