Citation

Nguyen AH, Acklin MW, Fuger K, Gowensmith WN, Ignacio LA. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2011; 34(5): 341-348.

Affiliation

Argosy University Hawaii Campus, Honolulu, HI, United States.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.08.006

PMID

21920604

Abstract

Annually thousands of insanity acquitees are released from mental hospitals when they are no longer determined to be dangerous. This research examined quality of post-acquittal Conditional Release (CR) reports submitted to the Hawaii Judiciary. Hawaii utilizes a "three panel" system for assessing trial felony competency, criminal responsibility, and conditional release, where typically two psychologists (one Department of Health and one community-based) and one community-based psychiatrist submit independent reports to the Court. One hundred fifty CR reports were rated using a 44-item report quality measure. Interrater reliability trials indicated good to excellent agreement between quality ratings. Overall level of report quality was poor regardless of examiners' professional discipline, employer, or board certification status. Concordance rates for CR opinions were poor. Level of agreement between the judicial determination and majority recommendations was also poor. Reasons for the poor quality and level of agreement are discussed with recommendations for report quality improvement, including standardization of procedures and use of forensic risk assessment instruments.

Language: en