Competency to stand trial adjudication: a comparison of female and male defendants

Competency to stand trial adjudication is a decision point in the criminal justice system at which gender bias may result in different outcomes for female defendants as compared with males. However, this is an unexplored research area that lacks well-designed studies. The goals of this investigation, which used the largest known sample of U.S. female competency to stand trial defendants studied thus far, are to further understand this group of offenders and to address the gender bias issue as observed in a major southwestern urban court system. Multivariate logistic regression analyses on selected data for 157 female defendants and 187 of their male counterparts examined (1) variations within gender categories and (2) differences between men and women. The results of the within models showed some similarities, but also clear differences, in the determinants of court dispositions. The analyses failed to show an overall pattern of association between gender and competency adjudication. The influence of gender showed considerable variability across psychotic symptoms involving hallucinations and/or delusions: women with psychotic symptomatology were at high risk of being adjudicated incompetent. This study demonstrates how reliable data on female competency to stand trial defendants can assist the interface of the mental health and criminal justice systems in their adherence to the legal standard of competency. It also highlights the following research needs: (1) increased sample sizes of female evaluees; and (2) richer data sets with more and better information on how gender influences specific psychotic symptomatology, type of crime, and legally functional abilities.