Abstract

The evaluation of competency and criminal responsibility in forensic mental health plays a critical role in the intersection of law and psychology. Competency assessments determine an individual’s ability to stand trial, while evaluations of criminal responsibility assess whether a mental disorder may have impaired an individual's capacity to understand the nature or wrongfulness of their actions at the time of the offense. This article explores the legal and psychological frameworks that guide these evaluations, emphasizing key criteria such as competency to stand trial (CST) and the insanity defense. Through case studies and legal precedents, we examine how forensic mental health professionals balance clinical insight with legal standards, highlighting the complexities and ethical challenges involved in their assessments. The article also addresses the broader implications for justice, including how mental health evaluations can influence sentencing, treatment recommendations, and rehabilitation efforts. Ultimately, this discussion underscores the vital role of forensic mental health in ensuring that both the legal rights of defendants and the safety of society are upheld.