Term-of-Years Sentences Since Miller v. Alabama.

Since the landmark case of Roper v. Simmons in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a series of cases on sentencing for juvenile criminal offenders. Emphasizing that children are different for the purposes of criminal punishment, the Court has incrementally held that it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to impose death or life without parole for most juvenile offenders. Although the Supreme Court rulings establish minimum standards, they do not prescribe a clear framework for implementation. States have, accordingly, responded differently in interpreting and implementing the Supreme Court precedent. One area where a split exists between states is in juvenile term-of-years sentences that amount to de facto life sentences without parole. The case of People v. Contreras from California is one of the most recent state cases to address this problem. Reviewed here are Contreras, the historical precedent supporting juvenile justice reform, and jurisdictional responses to the notion of sentencing juveniles to de facto life sentences. Also discussed is a call for meaningful periodic opportunities for juveniles to be considered for release.

Creating a State-Academic Partnership to Advance a Forensic Teaching Service: Benefits and Barriers.

In Washington State, like many states, there is a shortage of forensically trained mental health clinicians to work with criminal justice-involved individuals. At the direction of the state legislature, a collaborative project was undertaken by the University of Washington, the state Department of Social and Health Services, and a state psychiatric hospital to develop a proposal for a jointly sponsored forensic teaching service. The authors reviewed the literature, surveyed and interviewed forensic psychiatry and psychology training directors, and conducted site visits of selected training programs that offer multidisciplinary training or have affiliations with state hospitals. The authors conducted focus groups of additional stakeholders, including clinicians and patients in forensic settings, to better understand the needs in Washington. The authors report on several common benefits and barriers to establishing forensic teaching services. Other states and forensic programs may find this article useful in identifying common considerations for forensic mental health teaching services.

Sharing Violent Thoughts on the Internet.

The anonymity of the Internet enables people to explore and share certain thoughts they may not feel comfortable sharing through traditional means. This is true for socially unacceptable thoughts, including violent and sexually sadistic fantasies. Despite one's relative freedom to explore virtually any subject anonymously, some Internet activities can attract unwanted attention from the media and law enforcement authorities. The case of former New York City police officer Gilberto Valle is illustrative of the problems that can be generated by online activities. This article discusses the case of United States v. Valle, 807 F.3d 508 (2nd Cir. 2015) and the tension between First Amendment protections and criminal activity. Forensic mental health experts may be well suited to educate the trier of fact about violent fantasies and their associated risks.

Mental Condition Requirement in Competency to Stand Trial Assessments.

In Ohio, a criminal defendant is incompetent to stand trial only if "a present mental condition" renders him unable to understand the nature and objectives of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense. Some forensic mental health evaluators have treated the mental-condition requirement as synonymous with, or similar to, the psychiatric condition required in the state's insanity criteria, which requires a "severe mental disease or defect." Yet the term mental condition does not appear in other areas of the state's criminal code or in the state's definition of a mental illness for purposes of civil commitment. Moreover, Ohio's adjudicative competency statute does not explain what conditions or symptoms constitute a mental condition sufficient to render a defendant incompetent. This article is a review of the mental condition requirement in competence to stand trial laws, using Ohio as an example, and how this term has been interpreted (or misinterpreted) by mental health evaluators and the legal system. Suggestions for practicing forensic evaluators are offered.

Does Volk v DeMeerleer Conflict with the AMA Code of Medical Ethics on Breaching Patient Confidentiality to Protect Third Parties?

A recent Washington State case revisits the obligation of mental health clinicians to protect third parties from the violent acts of their patients. Although the case of Volk v DeMeerleer raises multiple legal, ethical, and policy issues, this article will focus on a potential ethical conflict between the case law and professional guidelines, namely the American Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics.