Throughout history mental health has played an important role in the legal system, specifically regarding matters of competency and sanity. Issues concerning competency to stand trial have grown throughout history and cover a large breadth of topics including, but not limited to: predictor variables, malingering, mental retardation, competency standards in execution, and the validity of competency assessments. The issue of competency in legal proceedings is rooted in English Common Law as early as the 17th century (CITE- ALawPsych&pol). Common law states that the standard for competency to stand trial requires that the defendant understand the proceedings against him or her and be able to assist in their defense (Cite-lackinsight) William Blackstone alluded to competency to stand trial in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1783), which questioned the abilities of mentally impaired defendants, then considered to be “mad”, to plead with the “caution that he ought” (CITE-). The inability for a defendant to exercise caution goes against their right to a fair trial because they cannot render decisions necessary to creating a defense. Although it was realized early on that competency is an important matter preceding trial, a legal standard for competency was not defined until 1960 in the case of Dusky v. United States.
The decision resulting from Dusky v. United States (1960) gave rise to the “Dusky standard”, which works to prevent an unfair trial by allowing a defendant to be deemed incompetent if he does not meet the standards for competence. Once deemed incompetent to stand trial, the defendant may be restored back to competence and subsequently referred back to court for a trial setting. Many variables affect whether a def...
... middle of paper ...
...ts with a clinical diagnosis of psychosis were assessed incompetent to stand trial as opposed to only 9 percent of those diagnosed as non-psychotic.” Incompetent diagnosis is correlated with psychotic and non- psychotic major disorder, while a diagnosis of non-psychotic minor or an alcohol/drug disorder is correlated with a finding of competency (#8). Clinical variables are of foremost importance in a competency evaluation. Individuals scoring lower on IQ measurements of mental functioning are more likely to be considered IST than those functioning at a higher rate. Additionally, being diagnosed with a mental illness, specifically one exhibiting symptoms of psychosis and non-psychotic major disorder, tend to be correlated with an IST decision. Conversely, defendants with a diagnosis of drug, alcohol, or non-psychotic minor disorders are more likely to be found CST.
The Supreme Court formulated the standards of competency in the criminal process, in the case of Dusky v, united states, 362 U.S 402 (1960). The standards set by the court are broad, vague and open-textured. It allows clinical evaluations in the interpretation and application of the test. The conviction of a defendant while he or she has mental illness or incompetence violates due process.
Zonana, H. V., Wells, J. A., Getz, M. A., & Buchanan, J. A. (1990). The NGRI Registry: Initial analyses of data collected on Connecticut insanity acquittees: I. Bulletin Of The American Academy Of Psychiatry & The Law, 18(2), 115-128.
...from completely liking the impact their condition has on their behavior. Mentally handicapped respondents, particularly the individuals who are not fiscally well-to-do, are regularly spoken to by inadequate direction. They say courts frequently choose trial lawyers who are "excessively unpracticed, exhausted, or uninterested" to legitimately shield their customersand left their defendant to make their own particular shutting contentions. At last, mentally retarded respondents face members in the criminal equity framework including barrier lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and juries—who are inconceivably uninformed of the nature and importance of mental handicap, are regularly more concerned with the political and expert results of acquiring a "triumphant" death penalty sentence than genuinely acknowledging the impact this condition has on the indivudual's perception.
The criminal justice system takes on a pivotal role in pursuing and preventing crimes in society. When a suspect is caught and then faced with charges for a violent crime, they legally have the right to a fair trial. In order for a criminal proceeding to successfully take place, the defendant must be fully aware of their surroundings, have a basic understanding of court procedures, as well as being capable of defending their one case. Competency to stand trial (CST) is essential for maintaining fairness in the courtroom and producing a just verdict. However, if a defendant is unable to understand legal proceedings due to mental illness or impairment, they must be thoroughly assessed and evaluated before declared incompetent to stand trial. Carrying out a case with a defendant who lacks mental capacity causes numerous issues because the individual is incapable of supplying their lawyers with information regarding their crime or any of the witness testimonies at trial. Lack of comprehensible communication between a defendant and attorney forces an ineffective defense in the case. Mental disturbances in the defendant that may cause disorderly conduct in the court room are considered disruptive and weaken the authority of the legal system. Supreme Court cases that have dealt with competency to stand trial issues over the years have made significant rulings, which have stressed the importance of identifying whether or not a defendant is in fact incompetent.
For those that don’t know, the insanity plea, as defined by Cornell Law, is based on the fact that a person accused of a crime can acknowledge that he/she committed the crime, but argue that he/she is not responsible for it because of his or her mental illness, by pleading “not guilty by reason of insanity”. This first became a problem in 1843. Daniel M’Naughten was trialed for shooting the secretary of the Prime Minister in attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister himself. It was said that M’Naughten thought the Prime Minister was the person behind all his personal and financial problems. The jury ruled him “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The reason for the verdict was M’Naughten...
Mental Illness has been prevalent all throughout our history from Isaac Newton to Abraham Lincoln to Sylvia Plath and so on. These illnesses can be as minor as a slight bipolar disorder or as severe as schizophrenia. In recent years, mental illnesses are becoming more prevalent in our criminal justice systems than anywhere else. Mental illness is becoming an association with crime and based on the information that has been found, this paper will attempt to further define the problem of mental illness within our criminal justice system and offer alternatives or insights as to how to possibly help with this problem.
Lamb, H. Richard., Weinberger, Linda E., & Gross, Bruce H. (2004). Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system: Some Perspectives. Psychiatric Quarterly 75(2): 107-126.
" Mental Illness and the Death Penalty." American Civil Liberties Union. May 5, 2009. Web. 04
Lamb, H. R. (2004). Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system: Some perspectives. Psychiatric Quarterly, 108-126.
The Court outlined the basic standards for determining competency due to the significance of the Dusky case. The competency standard main elements for standing trial
The insanity defense pertains that the issue of the concept of insanity which defines the extent to which a person accused of crimes may be alleviated of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease. “The term insanity routinely attracts widespread public attention that is far out of proportion to the defense’s impact on criminal justice” (Butler,133). The decision of this defense is solely determined by the trial judge and the jury. They determine if a criminal suffers from a mental illness. The final determination of a mental disease is solely on the jury who uses evidence and information drawn from an expert witness. The result of such a determination places the individual accused, either in a mental facility, incarcerated or released from all charges. Due to the aforementioned factors, there are many problems raised by the insanity defense. Some problems would be the actual possibility of determining mental illness, justify the placement of the judged “mentally ill” offenders and the total usefulness of such a defense. In all it is believed that the insanity defense should be an invalid defense and that it is useless and should potentially be completely abolished.
The two concepts play significantly different roles in court. Competency determines whether a defendant will be able to appear at trial and understand the proceedings; sanity determines whether a defendant will be held responsible for his criminal actions. And so, a defendant who is competent to stand trial may even so be found not guilty by reason of insanity. However, if a defendant is found not competent to stand trial, he will never be found guilty or not guilty, for that matter, because no trial would be held in the first place. In other words, people can be declared legally competent and also legally insane. However, people cannot be declared legally insane unless they are
Competency to stand Trial: Refers to the ability or inability of a person to stand trial, and the inability could be due to an issue preventing them from being able to participate in their defense. If a person is considered incompetent, it could be for many reasons, for instance a mental or physical disorder as well as an intellectual disability.
... The source of the defendant’s mental abnormality is the greatest point of distinction between all of the defendants. Whether the abnormality is internal, external or a diagnosed medical condition will play a significant role in which defence can be used. As defences, they are all used for a similar reason, and that is to eliminate or reduce liability for criminal offences.
There are two theories that justify punishment: retributivism according to which punishment ensures that justice is done, and utilitarianism which justifies punishment because it prevents further harm being done. The essence of defences is that those who do not freely choose to commit an offence should not be punished, especially in those cases where the defendant's actions are involuntary. All three of these defences concern mental abnormalities. Diminished responsibility is a partial statutory defence and a partial excuse. Insanity and automatism are excuses and defences of failure of proof. While automatism and diminished responsibility can only be raised by the defendant, insanity can be raised by the defence or the prosecution. It can be raised by the prosecution when the defendant pleads diminished responsibility or automatism. The defendant may also appeal against the insanity verdict. With insanity and diminished responsibility, the burden of proof is on the defendant. With automatism the burden of proof is on the prosecution and they must negate an automatism claim beyond reasonable doubt.