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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT