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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT