Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of courts in the criminal justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The role of courts in the criminal justice system
A court system must observe and consider certain issues when a person stands trial in a court of law. Some of these issues involve competency, sanity and diminished capacity among other issues. These issues influence the decision of the court regarding the offence that the accused faces. For a court of law to make its decision, it has to ensure that the accused is in an acceptable state of health condition. There are certain standards that the court uses to determine competency level of the accused. John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith …show more content…
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. Therefore, a defendant, the court or the attorney general can order a hearing on motion. Before the date of the hearing of the case, the court may order a psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the defendant. Pursuant to the provisions of section 4247, psychologists or psychiatrists report the findings to the court. The court has the permission to request a deadline for the evaluation so that it can insure the promptness of the examination. The court can also request the experts who carried out the evaluation, to specify observations made of the defendant, the type of examination carried out and the opinion of the experts on the competency
Defining and Assessing Competency to Stand Trial. (2004, February 23). Criminal Forensics Competency. Retrieved March 10, 2014, from http://forensicpsychiatry.stanford.edu/Files/Criminal%20Forensics/Competency.2.pdf
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 trial was brought to a speedy conclusion. Not only did Judge Evans find the twelve guilty, fine them $100 each, and committed them to jail, but five people in the courtroom who had served as witnesses for the defense arrested. […] The police were then instructed to transfer the seventeen prisoners that night to the county jail”(30).
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.
Yet, many jurisdictions using the death penalty have allowed provisions exempting the mentally incompetent from execution. American law recognizes additional reason for exclusion, including issues focusing on retribution, the ability to provide information for the appeals process, and the ability to psychological prepare for death (Brodsky et al., 1999). Although these exclusions are in place, there is still a need to evaluate an inmate’s competency.
Cognitive psychology is deeply rooted in our legal system and forms the element or standard of almost all crimes and civil misconduct. An understanding of psychology, in particular cognitive psychology, aids jurors, attorneys, defendants, prosecutors, and judges in the process of the legal system specially where adjudicating guilt or liability. In addition, cognitive psychology comes into play where the legal system relies on witness testimony when adjudicating a case.
Judge Kaufman made a big point when Ethel used her Fifth Amendment right and declined to answer questions on the basis that she might incriminate herself. The judge said, "it is something that the jury may weigh and consider on the questioning of the truthfulness of the witness and on credibility." Not only that, but the judge allegedly would lead prosecuting witnesses to say things against defense. Defense lawyer Alexander Block tried to get a mistrial based on the judge's behavior, but was denied. Judge's bias continued throughout the trial and was expressed most clearly in his sentencing speech. The issue of punishment in this case is presented in a unique framework of history.
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.
Welner M.D., Michael. "Competency to Stand Trial, Proceed Pro Se, Plea, Receive Sentenceing." n.d. The Forensic Panel. Web. 3 January 2014.
Davidson’s case more cogent. The fact that the psychological evaluation was conducted as a standardized test to know whether his is mentally sound or not is not entirely representative. As mentioned before, the problem lies, surprisingly, in the objectively of the evaluation. The person’s mental health cannot be tested using an objective method. A person is a subjective creature, an individual, and therefore an assessment of his personal qualities should be conducted in the subjective matter, not otherwise. By conducting test with the question in mind “Is he sane or not?” there are only two possible outcomes. Independent of the result, the assessment would not be sound based on the assumption that person’s sanity, or rather state of mind or soul, is like a computer that exists only in two states. I believe that it should be more personal, as usual as it might sound; the test should be an elaborate and well-rounded interpretation of one’s mental state. Instead of going down the list and checking of things that indicate that the person is ‘functioning normally’, it should be conducted in a way that the person’s inner world would be painted at the end of the session, so that can it be said if Mr. Davidson is sane or not in respect of his own personal rather than the accepted definition of mentally
Mossman Douglas & Noffsinger Stephen G. & Ash Peter & Frierson Richard L. & Gerbasi Joan & Hackett Maureen & Lewis Catherine F. & Pinals Debra & Scott Charles & Sieg Karl G. & Wall Barry W. & Zonana Howard V., AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial, The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Vol. 35, Number 4, 2007.
6)"> Mental Illness and Criminal Responsibility , search results for "insanity defense" and "mental illness"
Gary B. Melton, John Petrila, Norman G. Poythress, Psychological Evaluations for the Court: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers, Guilford Publications, 3rd edition 2007
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...
The judge was a middle-aged male who looked intimidating and seemed to be well respected. To my surprise, we did not have to stand up when he entered the room. After the judge came out I assumed the jury would follow quickly after. However I quickly learned that there would be no jury for this particular trial. After a few minutes, the handcuffed defendant entered the room wearing an orange prison jumpsuit. He was a middle-aged, African-American male who was involved in a narcotic conspiracy case. In addition to the defendant a probation officer, the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer were also present. Aside from me, my classmate and a student from Georgetown the defendant’s wife and sister were in the