Competency is defined as whether an individual has sufficient present ability to perform necessary personal or legal functions. In 1960, Dusky v. United States was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial. Since the Dusky case, it has been questioned if there should some flexibility in competency tests to stand trial. Meaning, if a defendant is facing very serious charges in case with complex facts, do they need to be more competent than someone with less serious charges? 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 …show more content…
This is especially true in misdemeanor cases, where many defendants plead guilty. Civil commitment standards and the practice of deinstitutionalization have funneled many people who previously would have been civil patients into criminal courts. As a result, many defendants now evaluated for competency are charged with only minor misdemeanors (Winick 1995). Defendants arrested petty offenses, such as disorderly conduct or shoplifting, can usually plead guilty which usually results in a small fine. However, those defendants are found incompetent to stand trial, they could face months of incarceration in a jail or in a maximum security mental hospital. If the defendant is restored to competency and returned to court, they probably will accept the same plea bargain. The degree of competency required of the defendant should be relatively modest when making a guilty plea imposes minimal consequences on the defendant. When consequences could be more substantial, like a felony conviction carrying a lengthy prison sentence, the degree of competency required to plead guilty should be higher. In cases which defendants seek to plead …show more content…
Defendants are entitled to fewer procedural protections when tried for petty offenses than when tried for more serious offenses. The United States Supreme Court recognizes a petty offense exception to the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Under this exception, a jury trial is unavailable in cases in which the possible penalty does not exceed six months imprisonment (Winick
Questions Presented: This is where the legal issues are stated that the party would like for the appellate court to think about and make a final decision (Statsky, pg. 545).
Frontline: The Confession The Norfolk Four Randa Seder A Briefing on the Case On 1997 four men were convicted of the rape and murder of Michelle Basko. The four men were Joe Dick, Daniel Williams, Eric Wilson, and Derek Tice. Detective Robert Ford believed that the four U.S. navy men were all guilty of the crime. One of the victim’s friend claimed that Daniel Williams, was Michelle Basko’s murderer.
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.
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
6-9. When the litigants settle their case by compromise, let the magistrate announce it. If they do not compromise, let them state each his own side of the case, in the comitium of the forum before noon. Afterwards let them talk it out together, while both are present. After noon, in case either party has failed to appear, let the magistrate pronounce judgment in favor of the one who is present. If both are present the trial may last until sunset but no later.
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
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 system is set up to deter the person specifically from a crime but also as a general deterrent to prevent the public from committing the same crime. With certain crimes, such as impaired driving, an accused may be given a stiffer penalty if found guilty than if taking a plea as the courts will want to prevent others from committing the same act and will give a harsh penalty as a warning to the public that the courts take this offence seriously. If an accused is a repeat offender, their sentence will become increasingly strict as their record lengthens. The courts will want to impose a specific deterrent and will give a harsher punishment as a means to cause the accused think twice about committing the act again. Therefore, pleading down to a lesser charge will help the accused to avoid the harsher
Corrections are a necessary tool to protect society from those who do harm to others or to others property. Depending on the type of crime that was committed, and if the crime is considered a state or federal charge, also depends on where the person sentenced will do his time. There are four main sentencing options available; prison, probation, probation and confinement, and prison and community split. When a person is sentenced to do their time in prison most likely they will go to a state or federal prison. If a person is ordered probation, it prevents them from going to jail but they have stipulations on their probation. This is called intermediate sanctions, which are the various new correctional options used as adjuncts to and part of probation. Some intermediate sanctions include restitution, fines, day fines, community service, intensive supervised probation, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and shock incarceration.
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 criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
When the War on Drugs began, plea bargains were declared constitutional and had to be regularly used to deal with the sudden stress on the legal system (Berger). The courts, prosecutors, and public defenders couldn 't handle the sheer amount of cases; they now had to deal with by allowing them to go to trial. Once plea bargains were made constitutional, it began to impact the very foundations of the Justice System and those who work on it in several ways. Frankly, it 's my belief that career criminals or those who have committed serious offenses should not be allowed to make an appeal. Crimes like murder, theft of large amounts of money or assault cases should not be allowed to go to a plea bargain. On the other hand, first-time offenders, petty criminals and individuals who are in cases with circumstantial evidence should be allowed to plea. Plea bargaining, on the whole, greatly benefits the prosecutor and the Justice System. Also, it allows for the massive backlog of cases to be alleviated through other means and saves the government a lot of time, stress and taxpayer funds that can be used for more useful and relevant matters (Langden). Plea bargaining also greatly benefits the guilty. It allows for them to reduce the sentences and change what type of charge is left on their record. What a person ultimately found guilty of will have repercussions and having a lesser charge on their records can make a huge difference in their lives (Bernman). The difference between a misdemeanor and felony for some people is the difference between employed and
In order to understand whether judges would be better at making decisions if they were more truthful, if is essential that an examination of the manner in which they decide cases is undertaken. Many judges will decide based on their own personal back ground. For example, if the judge had a clash in the past with a member of a different race that might play a role in the decision making process. Judicial impartiality is a fundamental characterized in a legal system under the rule of law. The law against bias together with the right to be heard from the principles of natural justice. Judicial proceedings must follow stricter procedural requirements. Implying that proceedings must be similar to those followed in court proceedings. If the requirement is not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Plea bargaining in the United States is controversial issue because the practice of plea bargaining is necessary as long as the United States has high crime rates and facilities for cases. Plea bargaining allows the flexibility necessary if the system is to respond with any degree of concern for the circumstances of individual cases, however, it may also entice defendants to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit rather than risk their constitutional right to
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...
The most significant feature of an investigative study is the precision and simplicity of the investigative problem. For a brief assertion, it definitely has a great deal of influence on the study. The statement of the problem is the central position of the study. The problem statement should affirm what will be studied, whether the study will be completed by means of experimental or non-experimental analysis, and what the reason and function of the results will bring. As an element of the opening, profound problem declarations satisfies the query of why the study should to be performed. The reason of this essay is to discuss the features of an investigative problem; in addition, the essay will center on what constitutes a researchable problem; the components of a well formed Statement of Research Problem; and, what constitutes a reasonable theoretical framework for the need of a study.