CONFUSING THE TERMS GUILTY AND NOT GUILTY - IMPLICATIONS FOR ALLEGED OFFENDERS WITH MENTAL-RETARDATION

Evaluations of competency to stand trial of 45 alleged offenders with mental retardation were inspected to examine their understanding of ''guilty'' and ''not guilty.'' Seven defendants (16%) had virtually no knowledge of ''guilty'' and were judged not competent after a thorough evaluation. None received a jail sentence. Although the criminal justice system served well this group with mental retardation, questions remain about the fate of those not identified. Are some pleading guilty when actually meaning ''I did not do it'' and being surprised by an unexpected jail sentence?