PSY 622 SNHU Dusky v United States Case Diminished Capacity & Competency Discussion Rubrics and responses attached. Discuss the case of Dusky v. United Sta

PSY 622 SNHU Dusky v United States Case Diminished Capacity & Competency Discussion Rubrics and responses attached. Discuss the case of Dusky v. United States (1960) with your classmates. Using the appropriate terminology, examine the background, participants, and historical significance of the case in relation to competency assessments used in today’s forensic practice. In your discussion, provide the psychometrics of two competency assessment tools that are preferred in your competency restoration program.In response to your peers, comment on the strengths of the assessment tools discussed and make suggestions for potential alternatives. Graduate Discussion Rubric
Overview
Your active participation in the discussions is essential to your overall success this term. Discussion questions will help you make meaningful connections
between the course content and the larger concepts of the course. These discussions give you a chance to express your own thoughts, ask questions, and gain
insight from your peers and instructor.
Directions
For each discussion, you must create one initial post and follow up with at least two response posts.
For your initial post, do the following:
? Write a post of 1 to 2 paragraphs.
? In Module One, complete your initial post by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.
? In Modules Two through Ten, complete your initial post by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
? Consider content from other parts of the course where appropriate. Use proper citation methods for your discipline when referencing scholarly or
popular sources.
For your response posts, do the following:
? Reply to at least two classmates outside of your own initial post thread.
? In Module One, complete your two response posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.
? In Modules Two through Ten, complete your two response posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
? Demonstrate more depth and thought than saying things like “I agree” or “You are wrong.” Guidance is provided for you in the discussion prompt.
Rubric
Critical Elements
Comprehension
Timeliness
Engagement
Exemplary
Develops an initial post with an
organized, clear point of view or
idea using rich and significant
detail (100%)
N/A
Provides relevant and
meaningful response posts with
clarifying explanation and detail
(100%)
Proficient
Develops an initial post with a
point of view or idea using
appropriate detail (90%)
Submits initial post on time
(100%)
Provides relevant response
posts with some explanation
and detail (90%)
Needs Improvement
Develops an initial post with a
point of view or idea but with
some gaps in organization and
detail (70%)
Submits initial post one day late
(70%)
Provides somewhat relevant
response posts with some
explanation and detail (70%)
Not Evident
Does not develop an initial post
with an organized point of view
or idea (0%)
Value
20
Submits initial post two or more
days late (0%)
Provides response posts that are
generic with little explanation or
detail (0%)
10
20
Critical Elements
Critical Thinking
Writing (Mechanics)
Exemplary
Draws insightful conclusions
that are thoroughly defended
with evidence and examples
(100%)
Initial post and responses are
easily understood, clear, and
concise using proper citation
methods where applicable with
no errors in citations (100%)
Proficient
Draws informed conclusions
that are justified with evidence
(90%)
Needs Improvement
Draws logical conclusions (70%)
Not Evident
Does not draw logical
conclusions (0%)
Value
30
Initial post and responses are
easily understood using proper
citation methods where
applicable with few errors in
citations (90%)
Initial post and responses are
understandable using proper
citation methods where
applicable with a number of
errors in citations (70%)
Initial post and responses are
not understandable and do not
use proper citation methods
where applicable (0%)
Total
20
100%
ONE:
Pamala Henderson posted Apr 22, 2020 10:25 AM
Subscribe
Hello Dr, Gadlage and Class,
Examine the background, participants, and historical significance of the
case in relation to competency assessments used in today’s forensic
practice.
The background of the Dusky case (Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402,
1960) was Milton Dusky 33 was accused of participating in a kidnapping and
rape of an underage female. He was convicted and received a 45-year prison
sentence. After his conviction he asked for a new trial stating he did not
understand the proceedings against him which ended with his sentence being
reduced to 20-years. (Palermo, 2015).
The historical significance of this case is it set the Dusky standard of what it
means to be incompetent to stand trial to be able to consult with their attorney,
to participate in their own defense and understand the charges against them.
(Akerman, 2010). Different states have different requirements when it comes to
incompetence. In Oklahoma, the State must have the burden of proof by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is competent to stand trial.
Therefore, the administration of the correct assessment is imperative to
providing the required criteria of incompetence to stand trial.
Provide the psychometrics of two competency assessment tools that are
preferred in your competency restoration program.
Some assessments cover more information than others. The assessment should
be used to meet the needs of both the defendant and the court. Some defendants
may have mental disorders that may require a different type of assessment
specific to their disorder. Grisso’s functional ability concepts which lists the
concepts needed to satisfy the Dusky standards. (Ackerman, 2010), this would
let the evaluator know they would be satisfying the needs of the court and
providing a more accurate account of the defendant’s level of competence.
The assessment tools that would be preferred in the competency restoration
program are the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised (ECST-R).
This assessment includes three scales that satisfy the Dusky criteria. The T score
conversion gives a clear understanding of the person’s status although there are
limitations for this assessment when it comes to other mental or anxiety
disorders for the court process it works. (Ackerman, 2010).
The MacArthur Structured Assessment of the Competences of Criminal
Defendants (MacCAT-CA). The 22-item measures understanding, reasoning
and appreciation which provide a way to get a better comprehension of the
defendants’ ability to fully understand the court process and why they are going
to court. (Ackerman, 2010). This assessment can be combined with the results
of other assessments to provide an overall view of the person’s status.
References
Ackerman, M. (2010). Essentials of Forensic Psychological Assessment. (2nd
ed.). Hoboken, N.J. John Wiley & Sons.
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)
Palermo, G. B. (2015). Dusky Is Here to Stay–For Now. International Journal
of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 59(14), 1503.
*Just for information if you have never heard of this case, it provides a different
look competency to be executed. This case was in Oklahoma and I am friends
with the Gloria Leather’s the victim’s family.
Ross, B. (2001 January 12). Wanda Jean Allen executed Two-time killer dies by
lethal injection. Retrieved from: https://oklahoman.com/article/2726438/wandajean-allen-executed-two-time-killer-dies-by-lethal-injection.
less
TWO:
Sydney Wooten posted Apr 22, 2020 1:40 PM
Subscribe
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) examined competency levels and a
defendant’s right for this evaluation before trial. This provides the basic standards in
place for examination. Dusky was a man diagnosed with schizophrenia. He did not
have prior history with the law and had a wife and children. His mental illness had
him suffer with hallucinations and depression. In addition, Dusky suffered with
alcoholism. His wife had left him, he was evicted, and was forced to sleep in his car.
One day after a drinking spell, along with his medication usage, Dusky drove his
son’s two friends to pick up a girl and drove her across state lines. This led the young
boys to sexually assault her. While Dusky did try to participate, he was not successful.
Dusky was later arrested and was given a competency evaluation. It appeared that he
was competent because he knew where he was and seemed stable. But they did note
that because of his mental illness that he would not be able to successfully stand trial.
When he was eventually tried, Dusky was found guilty. This was appealed on the
terms that competency should not only be based on current awareness and recalling
events, but also be given the ability to talk with their counsel and have a clear, rational
understanding of the proceedings. This case set the standard for defining competency
for standing trial, consultation, and understanding proceedings. While this does vary
from state-to-state, there are the basic standards that are understood.
Forensic psychology utilizes competency assessment tools that can be used for
a restoration program. One is the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal
Adjudication. This style of assessment utilizes vignettes for hypothetical situations for
the individual to be able to easily understand and breakdown (Ackerman, 2010). While
this is useful, it is not completely successful and reliable with determining
competency levels in regard to interactions and consulting counsel. It is current
evaluation to see how the individual responds and reasons. The second is the
Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised. This assessment tool examines a
multitude of factors such as understanding, rational understanding, and consultation
with counsel. But it is important for examiners to implement various types of
assessment tools to ensure that there is a comprehensive evaluation (Ackerman, 2010).
Overall, it is difficult to determine competency the same way for each individual
client. This makes it hard to have accurate predictions for competency during the
actual proceedings. An individual could act different in this environment.
References:
Ackerman, M. J. (2010). Essentials of forensic psychological assessment (Vol. 77). John
Wiley & Sons.
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)
less

Purchase answer to see full
attachment