ILNews

Indiana psychologists question qualifications for insanity evaluations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Psychological Association tried to convince members of the Indiana General Assembly to make a key change to state law governing insanity evaluations Sept. 24, but legislators seemed skeptical of the need for a revision.

Representatives from the association offered their proposal during the Legislature’s Commission on Courts hearing at the Statehouse. The association wants to remove a requirement from the state statute that courts have to appoint at least one psychiatrist to assess criminal defendants who claim insanity.

Currently the law allows judges to appoint two or three professionals to the evaluation team, which can include a psychologist or a physician, but must include a psychiatrist.

Eliminating that requirement, the association maintained, would give judges more flexibility and help alleviate the problems caused by the shortage of psychiatrists available for evaluations. Delays occur in finding a psychiatrist and scheduling an appointment, leaving a defendant to wait in jail.

Questions from the commission indicated members were hesitant to remove psychiatrists from insanity evaluations because of their extensive medical training.  

Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson pointed to the growing role of medications and drugs in behavior and asked if psychologists know enough about pharmacology and illegal substances to evaluate a defendant and inform the court.

Psychologist Tom Barbera replied that not many psychologists have pursued that level of training. Both he and Fort Wayne psychologist Stephen Ross emphasized, however, that psychologists do receive an extensive amount of academic and clinical training before practicing.

Rep. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, said he did not think a psychologist would be a “worthy substitute” for a psychiatrist because the former has no training in chemicals or the brain.

Indiana University School of Medicine associate professor of clinical psychiatry and certified forensic psychiatrist George Parker drew sharp contrasts between the training of psychiatrists and psychologists. He said psychiatrists are “uniquely qualified” to evaluate medication issues and physical conditions.

Sen. Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago, said he was not aware that courts in Indiana were having trouble finding psychiatrists for insanity evaluations. He questioned if the shortage issue was not being manufactured.

Ross responded that while some counties in the state have plenty of psychiatrists, others do not. He noted his home of Allen County has many psychiatrists but only one does insanity evaluations for the court.

The IPA noted that in 2011 the General Assembly removed the requirement that at least one psychiatrist be appointed for the evaluation of a defendant’s competency to stand trial. Now, the association said, the Legislature needs to take the next step.

Again highlighting medical training, Parker said having psychiatrists involved in insanity determinations was important because of the retrospective nature of the evaluation, which draws upon medical training.

Also, he said, competency evaluations have a safe guard. Defendants who are found not competent to stand trial are not released from custody but rather sent to a mental health hospital for further evaluation and treatment.

Sen. Joe Zakas, R-Granger, asked Parker if removing the requirement for psychiatrists would not mitigate the delay in getting evaluations completed.

Parker said he tried to do evaluations quickly, scheduling no later than four weeks after he is given an assignment. Sometimes he has defendants brought to his office in Indianapolis and, when necessary, he drives to another county to do an assessment.

The commission did not vote on the issue. Its next meeting is scheduled for Oct. 8 when it will take up the issue of contents of judgment dockets.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT