Landmark Case Selection
Sarah Barr
Argosy University
Competency to Stand Trial
One landmark case in regards to competency to stand trial (CST) is the Supreme Court case of Dusky v. U.S. (1960). This case established the minimum standard for competency. Milton Dusky was a man charged with assisting in a kidnapping and rape of an underage female. Even though he suffered from schizophrenia he was found competent to stand trial and was convicted and sentenced to 45 years. There was a petition to reverse his conviction on the grounds that he was not, in fact, competent to stand trial. The courts granted a retrial which resulted in his sentenced being reduced to 20 years.
This case produced what is known as the Dusky Standard. They ruled that
…show more content…
in order to be found competent to stand trial, a defendant must have an adequate present capability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of understanding, and a rational, as well as factual understanding, of the proceedings against him. (H.R. Doc. No. 16607, 1961) Another case shortly followed this case in 1961 that outlined specifics to mental capacity. Wieter v. Settle determined that a person has to know five things in order to be deemed competent. First, the defendant has to know what time it is (date), where they are, and what things are. Second, the defendant has to understand that they are in court, charged with a criminal offense, that there is a judge, a prosecutor trying to convict them, and a lawyer trying to defend them. Third, the defendant has to be able to tell their lawyer about the facts of what happened and assist in their own defense. Fourth, the defendant has to understand what a jury is doing and why they are there. Last, the defendant has to have memory sufficient to relate the above things in their own personal manner. (C. Howard, personal communication, September 24, 2015) Criminal Responsibility U.S.
v. Hinkley is a landmark case when it comes to the psycholegal issue of criminal responsibility, or mental state at the time of the offense. John Hinkley Jr. was a man who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. He became obsessed with the movie Taxi Driver and an actress in the movie, Jodie Foster. He began to take on the persona of the taxi driver in the movie, who had contemplated political assassination. He wrote a letter to Jodie Foster before the attempted assassination stating that he was doing this in hopes to impress her. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity on all counts. (Linder, …show more content…
2008) Because of this case, a senator proposed to switch the burden of proof for insanity to the defense. Congress also narrowed the defense itself. “Legislation passed in 1984 required the defendant to prove a "severe" mental disease and eliminated the "volitional" or "control" aspect of the insanity defense. After 1984, a federal defendant has to prove that the "severe" mental disease made him "unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts."” (Linder, 2008, para. 50) In U.S. v. Hinkley it was ruled that defendants pleading insanity must prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence. Because of the case of U.S. v. Hinkley (1982), the US Congress passed the Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act in 1984. Right to Receive Mental Health Treatment In Wyatt v. Stickney (1974) a Federal court in Alabama ruled “that people who are involuntarily committed to state institutions because of mental illness or developmental disabilities have a constitutional right to treatment that will afford them a realistic opportunity to return to society.” ("Disability Justice," 2015, para. 1) This ruling led to facilities reformation and the creation of the minimum standard of care and rehabilitation for people with mental illness and developmental disabilities. This case lasted for over 30 years. ("Disability Justice," 2015, para. 2) The case started out because of a tax cut on cigarettes, which was used for mental health services. Thus, the tax cut drastically affected the services that mental health facilities could provide as many employees had to be let go due to the lack of funding. The fired employees filed a lawsuit for reinstatement, claiming the patients would receive inadequate treatment. The court decided on three factors that make up adequate treatment: a humane psychological and physical environment, qualified staff in numbers sufficient to administer adequate treatment, and individualized treatment plans. ("Disability Justice," 2015, p. 1) The Wyatt Standards were conceived in order to set minimum requirements to meet these three factors. For a facility to be considered a humane psychological and physical environment the standards include “freedom from unnecessary medication, physical restraint and isolation, experimental research, or unwanted treatment procedures such as lobotomy and shock treatment; guarantees of clothing, exercise, religious worship, and therapeutic labor only if compensated and part of a treatment plan; and adequate food and medical care.” ("Disability Justice," 2015, para. 9) If the state fails to provide adequate treatment that attempts to improve the dangerous behavior or develop self-care skills, then “the state would be in a position of imposing permanent loss of individual liberty, violating its constitutional responsibility to promote the welfare of its citizenry.” (Marty & Chapin, 2000, para. 8) Right to Refuse Psychiatric Treatment Right to refuse psychiatric treatment refers to when a patient has the right to refuse taking medications prescribed for mental health related issues. The case of Rennie v. Klein (1983) pertains to the issue of an involuntarily admitted patient’s right to refuse treatment with antipsychotic medication. (Wortzel, 2006, para. 6) John Rennie was a man who had a history of mental illness and hospitalization. After being given different medications that did not help, he sued to stop them from administering medication to him without a clear emergency. He eventually became suicidal, and homicidal. (Justia US Law website, n.d.) The ruling determined that involuntarily committed patients who have not been deemed incompetent cannot be forced to take medications unless in an emergency situation.
(Justia US Law website, n.d.) This means that involuntarily committed patients do have the right to refuse psychiatric treatment as long as they do not pose a danger to themselves or others as determined by a medical provider using professional judgement. (Wortzel, 2006, para. 6) The refusal of treatment is an issue because mental health professionals know that the medications will help the patient, however also knowing that forcing medication could be a liability. (Oriol & Oriol,
1986) Coercion of Mental Health Treatment Coercion of mental health treatment in a corrections setting refers to whether or not an inmate can be forced to take antipsychotic medications against their will. In Washington v. Harper (1990) an incarcerated inmate, Respondent Harper, sued the state of Washington over the issue of involuntary medication. Harper had a history of violence when not on his antipsychotic medication. After being forced to take medications, he sued stating that the 14th Amendment clause was violated because there was no judicial hearing before involuntarily medicating him. (Justia US Supreme Court website, n.d.) “The Supreme Court concluded that the state may forcibly treat a prison inmate with a serious mental illness, provided that he or she is dangerous and that the treatment is in his medical interest” (Wortzel, 2006, para. 9) as deemed in a judicial hearing. In order to determine dangerousness an administrative hearing is sufficient to administer such drugs. (Justia US Supreme Court website, n.d.) Participation in Treatment and Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders In the case of Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a convicted sex offender poses a danger to others because of “mental abnormality,” then that offender may be committed to treatment indefinitely and that this does not fall under double-jeopardy. “Mental abnormality” under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act is defined as someone who has a predisposition to commit sexually violent offenses. (Rollman, 1998, para. 5) Leroy Hendricks was a man with an extensive history of sexually abusing children. After multiple stints of incarceration, he served ten years in prison for his latest conviction. When he was scheduled to be released to a halfway house, the state sought civil commitment under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (1994). He fit into one of the four categories required under the Act as he was convicted of a sexually violent offense. Hendricks fought the confinement arguing that it violated the Constitution’s Due Process, Double Jeopardy, and Ex Post Facto Clauses. The Court voted that the Act does meet the Due Process requirements and does not violate Double Jeopardy or Ex Post Facto Clauses. (Rollman, 1998) References H.R. Doc. No. 16607 at (1961). Justia US Law website. (n.d.). http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/462/1131/2142341/ Justia US Supreme Court website. (n.d.). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/210/ Linder, D. (2008). The trial of John W. Hinkley, Jr. . Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyaccount.html Marty, D. A., & Chapin, R. (2000). The legislative tenets of client’s right to treatment in the least restrictive environment and freedom from harm: Implications for community providers. Community Mental Health Journal, 36, 545-556. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/pqcentral/docview/228390707/40FF68218D744CCPQ/1?accountid=34899 Oriol, M. D., & Oriol, R. D. (1986). Involuntary commitment and the right to refuse treatment. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health Services, 11, 15-16, 18-20. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/pqcentral/docview/1024131163/213F468D55974039PQ/2?accountid=34899 Rollman, E. M. (1998). “Mental illness”: A sexually violent predator is punished twice for one crime. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 985-1014. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/pqcentral/docview/218400797/8B490BA2814D4C04PQ/14?accountid=34899 Wortzel, H. (2006). The right to refuse treatment. Psychiatric Times, 23, 30. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/pqcentral/docview/204561869/C65377C61D214F00PQ/12?accountid=34899 Wyatt v. Stickney. (2015). Retrieved from http://disabilityju
Throughout the trial, defense attorneys attempted to argue Salvi was suffering from psychological disorders that would make him incompetent for trial. Ultimately, however Salvi was found competent to stand trial. After reading Salvi’s full psychiatric interview, the official court transcript of the four-day competency hearing, and the day-to-day summary; I have come to agree that the defendant, John Salvi was competent to stand trial.
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.
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
Gray, J. /O'Reilly, R. (2009): Supreme court of Canada's "Beautiful Mind" case. In: International journal of law and psychiatry, Vol. 32, Issue 5, pp. 315-322.
McLellan, F. (2006). Mental health and justice: the case of Andrea Yates. The Lancet, 1951-1954.
Psychiatric hospitals, also known as mental hospitals and mental asylums, are hospitals or wards specializing in the treatment of serious psychiatric diseases, such as clinical depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. Psychiatric hospitals vary widely in their size and grading. Some hospitals may specialize only in short-term or outpatient therapy for low-risk patients. Others may specialize in the temporary or permanent care of residents who, as a result of a psychological disorder, require routine assistance, treatment, or a specialized and controlled environment. Patients are often admitted on a voluntary basis, but people whom psychiatrists believe may pose a significant danger to themselves or others may be subject to involuntary commitment.
What many American do not realize is that the concept of peremptory challenges has been around since the Roman era, but controversy over the topic in America did not come about until the twentieth century (Henley 1). Under Roman law, each litigant was allowed to select 100 jurors and then strike as many as 50 people from the jury pool (1). English Common law allowed the defendant 35 peremptory challenges, while the prosecution had an unlimited amount (1). This system was alive in England until 1305 when Parliament outlawed the prosecution’s right to peremptory challenges (1). It took over 600 years for Parliament to do the same with the rights to challenges for defendants in 1988 (1). The American legal system, being based on British common law, has always allowed for the use of peremptory challenges. One reasoning behind this fact is the American tradition of challenges (6). To be exact, the reason we continue to use peremptory challenges ...
Forcing someone to take medication or be hospitalized against their will seems contrary to an individual’s right to refuse medical treatment, however, the issue becomes complicated when it involves individuals suffering from a mental illness. What should be done when a person has lost their grasp on reality, or if they are at a risk of harming themselves or others? Would that justify denying individuals the right to refuse treatment and issuing involuntary treatment? Numerous books and articles have been written which debates this issue and presents the recommendations of assorted experts.
In 1990, Brenda Koss shot her husband, Michael, while he slept and killed him consequently. Brenda Koss and a number of other witnesses testified about Michael’s ongoing abusive behaviors toward her. The Ohio Supreme Court recognized BWS as a defense in a criminal case. The Koss case is an example of how the law and perception on BWS evolved. In 1981, the state high court had refused to allow the admission of any evidence on BWS, believing that it had not yet been scientifically validated to sufficient extent. However in State v. Koss case, the court found that the professional literature and psychiatric understanding of BWS had very much improved; therefore, the court reversed itself and held that expert testimony on BWS could be admitted in a trial. The Court held that evidence of BWS was admissible through an expert testimony to help prove an element of self-defense —that is, Brenda Koss had a bona fide belief that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that her only means of escape was the use of force (Bettman, 2011). This case illustrates how the court changed its opinion and perception on BWS as the public started to understand more about BWS and battered women. Unlike State v. Stewart (1988), BWS was positively used to support battered women’s acts of self-defense. Shortly after the Koss case was decided, the legislature passed a law recognizing and validating BWS; it permits the use of expert testimony in support of the defense.
As time goes on, the law has put more emphasis on facility just like Bridgewater State Hospital in which many of the actions of the facility workers can face legal consequences such as facing prison time, fines, lawsuits, and etc. Society has a better understanding of why certain people act the way that they do and being more knowledgeable about psychology and mental diseases allows us to have a different approach when dealing with these topics or these individuals. In today’s era, there are many normal individuals who are willing to stand up for those who do not have a voice of their own. I believe that this change in one’s ability to stand up for another individual or group of individuals is what brought about change to the medical environment of those who are mentally
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.
This literature review is focusing on discussing the effects of seclusion and restraints on treatment consequences of patients in mental health area. Seclusion and Restraint are used for controlling the behavioral patterns of the mentally ill patients in different surroundings consisting of psychiatric management facilities and hospitals (Kentley, 2009). Over past decade, comprehensible consensus has come out that seclusion and restraints are secure interventions of last alternative and application of those interventions should and can be diminished significantly (Knight, 2011). However, recent studies indicated that it is traumatic for patients experiencing or witnessing restraint and seclusion traumatic; patients can feel high levels of anxiety, fear, and anger once aware that restraint is going to take place, sometimes it could resulting in an exacerbation of patient’s mental status (Stewart et al, 2010). Due to the humanitarian, ethical, and legal issues which could lead to, seclusion and restraints are known as the most controversial management strategies (Holmes, Kennedy & Perron, 2004). Previous studies and researches could not analyze this topic adequately; thus, further researches and studies related to the effects and risk managements of using seclusions and restrains will be discussed in below.
Wouldn’t it be completely irrational to sentence every mentally ill individual to jail purely because they suffered from a mental illness? Often, mentally ill people behave in an eccentric manner and allure the attention of police officers who do not differentiate the mentally ill from mentally stable people and immediately charge them with misdemeanors. There are approximately 300,000 inmates, with the number increasing every year, which suffer from a mental illness and do not receive proper treatment. Jails are not adequately equipped to care for mentally ill inmates, which can lead to an escalation of an inmate’s illness. Society has failed to provide enough social resources for citizens suffering from psychiatric illnesses in its community, transferring mentally unstable individuals between mental institutions and jails, when in fact adequate aid such as providing proper medication, rehabilitation opportunities, and more psychiatric hospitals in communities is a necessity to reconstitute these individuals.
Since there are few regulations and a general lack of state presence in the mental health community, there is a lot of room for error and potential discrimination. On television and in the media we hear the horror stories of nurses manipulating and abusing patients to gain a twisted sense of superiority. Even though some of the stories in the media can be extreme, a majority of patients feel like they have been discriminated against while being treated, in fact “Many patients who seek help for mental health problems report feeling ‘patronized, punished or humiliated’ in their dealings with health professionals” (Christina Pellegrini, 2014). Walking into a health care facility, one expects to get fair, nondiscriminatory treatment, yet many patients feel as if they were punished or humiliated for seeking treatment. This feeling of denigration “[includes] negativity about a patient’s chance of recovery, misattribution of unrelated complaints to a patient’s mental illness and refusal to treat psychiatric symptoms in a medical setting”(2014). While patients are being treated, they are also being scrutinized, and treated as inferior just for having a mental condition. Even while having minimal access around the country to mental health treatment, the treatment itself is plagued with malpractice. This raises many questions about the mental health care systems, as well as the human rights that the patients are entitled to as human beings. While in a hospital, no one should feel like they’re being shamed or patronized because of their condition, regardless of the medical ailment. No matter the stance on this issue, for or against human rights, people in the mental health community deserve to have fair (meaning nonabusive and accessible)
The second condition to be established is whether the defendant had a “disease of the mind”. This condition is