Decision-Making in Post-acquittal Hospital Release: How Do Forensic Evaluators Make Their Decisions?

W. Neil Gowensmith, Amanda E. Bryant, Michael J Vitacco

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A large number of individuals are acquitted of criminal charges after being found "not guilty by reason of insanity." Most of these individuals are hospitalized and later seek hospital discharge under a court-ordered provision called conditional release ("CR"). Courts rely on opinions from forensic evaluators to determine acquittees' readiness for CR. However, how evaluators make these decisions are unknown. Eighty-nine CR readiness evaluators from nine states were surveyed to understand which factors evaluators prioritize and to understand evaluators' assessment methodologies and their beliefs about the CR process itself. Little uniformity was found among evaluators on any aspect of the decision-making process. Evaluators utilized a wide variety of methodologies when making their decisions on readiness for CR. Moreover, evaluators' conceptualizations of the CR process itself varied widely. The results highlight the difficulty and confusion evaluators face when conducting CR readiness evaluations, and demonstrate the need for enhanced training, statutory guidance, and standardized evaluation protocols for these evaluations. Copyright

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)596-607
Number of pages12
JournalBehavioral Sciences and the Law
Volume32
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2014

Fingerprint

Decision Making
decision making
evaluation
charge
Confusion
methodology
decision-making process

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law

Cite this

Decision-Making in Post-acquittal Hospital Release : How Do Forensic Evaluators Make Their Decisions? / Gowensmith, W. Neil; Bryant, Amanda E.; Vitacco, Michael J.

In: Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Vol. 32, No. 5, 01.09.2014, p. 596-607.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{cbc1116b27774020b23067197d5bafde,
title = "Decision-Making in Post-acquittal Hospital Release: How Do Forensic Evaluators Make Their Decisions?",
abstract = "A large number of individuals are acquitted of criminal charges after being found {"}not guilty by reason of insanity.{"} Most of these individuals are hospitalized and later seek hospital discharge under a court-ordered provision called conditional release ({"}CR{"}). Courts rely on opinions from forensic evaluators to determine acquittees' readiness for CR. However, how evaluators make these decisions are unknown. Eighty-nine CR readiness evaluators from nine states were surveyed to understand which factors evaluators prioritize and to understand evaluators' assessment methodologies and their beliefs about the CR process itself. Little uniformity was found among evaluators on any aspect of the decision-making process. Evaluators utilized a wide variety of methodologies when making their decisions on readiness for CR. Moreover, evaluators' conceptualizations of the CR process itself varied widely. The results highlight the difficulty and confusion evaluators face when conducting CR readiness evaluations, and demonstrate the need for enhanced training, statutory guidance, and standardized evaluation protocols for these evaluations. Copyright",
author = "Gowensmith, {W. Neil} and Bryant, {Amanda E.} and Vitacco, {Michael J}",
year = "2014",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/bsl.2135",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "596--607",
journal = "Behavioral Sciences and the Law",
issn = "0735-3936",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Decision-Making in Post-acquittal Hospital Release

T2 - How Do Forensic Evaluators Make Their Decisions?

AU - Gowensmith, W. Neil

AU - Bryant, Amanda E.

AU - Vitacco, Michael J

PY - 2014/9/1

Y1 - 2014/9/1

N2 - A large number of individuals are acquitted of criminal charges after being found "not guilty by reason of insanity." Most of these individuals are hospitalized and later seek hospital discharge under a court-ordered provision called conditional release ("CR"). Courts rely on opinions from forensic evaluators to determine acquittees' readiness for CR. However, how evaluators make these decisions are unknown. Eighty-nine CR readiness evaluators from nine states were surveyed to understand which factors evaluators prioritize and to understand evaluators' assessment methodologies and their beliefs about the CR process itself. Little uniformity was found among evaluators on any aspect of the decision-making process. Evaluators utilized a wide variety of methodologies when making their decisions on readiness for CR. Moreover, evaluators' conceptualizations of the CR process itself varied widely. The results highlight the difficulty and confusion evaluators face when conducting CR readiness evaluations, and demonstrate the need for enhanced training, statutory guidance, and standardized evaluation protocols for these evaluations. Copyright

AB - A large number of individuals are acquitted of criminal charges after being found "not guilty by reason of insanity." Most of these individuals are hospitalized and later seek hospital discharge under a court-ordered provision called conditional release ("CR"). Courts rely on opinions from forensic evaluators to determine acquittees' readiness for CR. However, how evaluators make these decisions are unknown. Eighty-nine CR readiness evaluators from nine states were surveyed to understand which factors evaluators prioritize and to understand evaluators' assessment methodologies and their beliefs about the CR process itself. Little uniformity was found among evaluators on any aspect of the decision-making process. Evaluators utilized a wide variety of methodologies when making their decisions on readiness for CR. Moreover, evaluators' conceptualizations of the CR process itself varied widely. The results highlight the difficulty and confusion evaluators face when conducting CR readiness evaluations, and demonstrate the need for enhanced training, statutory guidance, and standardized evaluation protocols for these evaluations. Copyright

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84911142700&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84911142700&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/bsl.2135

DO - 10.1002/bsl.2135

M3 - Article

C2 - 25283765

AN - SCOPUS:84911142700

VL - 32

SP - 596

EP - 607

JO - Behavioral Sciences and the Law

JF - Behavioral Sciences and the Law

SN - 0735-3936

IS - 5

ER -