{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022665457842248413, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.610778443113772, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A confusion of tongues: competence, insanity, psychiatry, and the law.

Psychiatrists share with the public some confusion and uncertainty about two highly visible forensic psychiatric examinations: competence to stand trial and criminal responsibility (insanity). The author reviews the content and context of these examinations, examines legal issues that define and underlie them, and clarifies commonly encountered areas of ambiguity and misunderstanding. The competence examination, which assesses a defendant's ability to participate in the trial process, focuses on the present state of the defendant's mental capacities. Two standards generally used are whether the defendant has a rational and factual understanding of the charges and penalties and has the ability to cooperate with the defense attorney. The examination for insanity is one of the most challenging and comprehensive in forensic psychiatry. The criteria in general address the defendant's awareness of the fact that the act was illegal, wrong, or a crime. Additional criteria address the defendant's ability to control behavior.