Abstract

Understanding the correlates of fitness to stand trial is essential to undertaking efficient, evidence-based assessments. We retrospectively analyzed 248 fitness assessment reports pertaining to 115 defendants in Victoria, Australia. Cognitive disorders (e.g., intellectual disability, brain injury) were the strongest predictor of unfitness whereas psychosis was unrelated. Psychiatrists authored the majority of reports (62.4%). Psychologists spent more time assessing the defendant, wrote longer reports, and reviewed more collateral materials. The reports expressly noted that malingering and feigning were considered in only 19% of reports. Fitness evaluations could be improved with standardized interviews, more consideration of statutory definitions of unfitness legal precedent, and embedding feigned unfitness measures into a general assessment procedure.

摘要

了解进行审判的适应性的相关性对于进行有效的，基于证据的评估至关重要。我们对澳大利亚维多利亚州115位被告的248份健康评估报告进行了回顾性分析。认知障碍（例如智力障碍，脑损伤）是最不适合的预测指标，而精神病则无关。精神科医生撰写了大部分报告（62.4％）。心理学家花费了更多时间评估被告，撰写了更长的报告，并审查了更多的抵押材料。这些报告明确指出，只有19％的报告考虑了假冒和伪装。通过标准的访谈，更多地考虑不适合的法律先例的法定定义，