When an individual is apprehend and charged with a crime, they must understand what they must be fully aware and be able to perform crucial personal and legal function. This is known to be competent. There are various types of legal competences that must be known such as the competency to confess, competency to waive Miranda rights, competency to make treatment decision and etc. In essences, competence is referring to being cognitively aware of the decision that a one is making such as confessing to a crime while understanding the consequences that will occur should they continue to confess. However, criminals that have a mental illness or defect might not appreciate the nature of their crime and might have difficulty understanding the stages of the trial (Costanzo, & Krauss 2012). These criminals would have to have a competency to stand trial evaluation established in order to continue trail. Competency to stand trial (CTS) was first established in the 1960 case Dusky v United States. In this case, the Supreme Court set the benchmark in CTS stating a defendant is not competent to stand trial if due to mental illness and/or defect; he lacks the cognitive capacity to assist counsel and aid in his own defense with a sensible degree of rational understanding or if the defendant does not have a rational understanding of the proceedings charged against him. Since Dusky v United States created the bench mark for CTS, there have been many other cases and Supreme Court decisions that have modified and refined CST. The three main cases that demonstrate this modification to CST are; Washington v Harper (1990), Riggins v Nevada (1992) and Sell v United states (2003). Each of these cases demonstrated the government attempting to restore the... ... middle of paper ... ...e medication to Sells. The medical hearing officer claimed that Sells delusional thinking could lead him into becoming dangerous. Sell’s challenges being medicated in court. The question that the Supreme Court must answer is if the U. S Constitution allows the federal government to administer antipsychotic medication to a defendant that is mentally ill but not dangerous in order for him to become CTS for a severe but nonviolent crime. The Supreme Court decided that the Constitution allows the government to forcibly administer antipsychotic drugs to a mentally ill defendant. However, the treatment must be medically suitable for the individual and will not cause side effects that won’t distribute the defendant during his trail. Another important factor that the government pointed out was if there was trail was significantly important to the governments’ interest.
...92‘s Riggins v. Nevada, and 1990‘s Washington v. Harper. In Harper, the court determined that prison inmates could be forcibly medicated if they were a danger to themselves or others, and if the medication was medically appropriate. Riggins, in turn, decided that a defendant already on trial could be forcibly medicated to ensure his competency and allow for the proceedings to continue smoothly, in essence bulldozing one’s 14th amendment rights to “accomplish essential state policy” (Riggins, 1992, as cited in Breneman, 2004, p. 971). Riggins also proclaimed that forcible medication must be the least invasive means of treatment, and provide minimal side effects. Sell was clearly the child of these two rulings, fusing the competing interests of governmental prosecution with the liberty and safety of the defendant.
...rts. The Supreme court often get requests to revisit the case, however the supreme regularly declines the offer.
There were several cases that led the Supreme Court justices to making their decision in Sweatt v.
When a person is accused of a crime, it is the responsibility of a judge to deem them competent to stand trial, mentally unstable to at the time of their trial, or not guilty by reason of insanity. This was something that was highly disputed during and after the case of John Salvi. John Salvi was an anti-abortionist of strong Catholic faith who shot and killed two people in attacks at Planned Parenthood clinics.
481 U.S.C. 279. U.S. Supreme Court, 1987.
Examples of this include the Supreme Court’s ruling on National League of Cities v Usery in 1976, where it was disputed whether the national government had the authority to set a minimum wage standard for the states to follow, in this particular case’s ruling, the Supreme Court decided no, the national government did not have the right to do so. Nine years later the Supreme overturned this previous ruling in the case of Garcia v San Antonio Metro Transit
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.
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
Lamb, H. R. (2004). Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system: Some perspectives. Psychiatric Quarterly, 108-126.
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?
... or by giving them written tests. Some psychiatrists call mental diseases a myth. The insanity defense would require both a mental disease and a relationship between the illness and the criminal behavior, neither of which could be scientifically proven. Of the criminals both acquitted and convicted using the insanity defense, a good number have shown conclusive evidence of recidivism. Many dangerous persons are allowed to return to the streets and many non-dangerous persons are forced into facilities due to an insanity plea adding further confusion and injustice within both the legal and medical systems. The insanity defense is impossible to maintain on the foundation of rules such as the M'Naghten Rule, and the relationship between law and psychiatry must be reinstated on a more scientific level, based on the neurological work now going on in the brain sciences.
Seltzer, T., 2005, ‘Mental health courts – A misguided attempt to address the criminal justice system’s unfair treatment of people with mental illnesses’, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 570-586.
Mental health and the criminal justice system have long been intertwined. Analyzing and understanding the links between these two subjects demands for a person to go in to depth in the fields of criminology, sociology, psychology, and psychiatry, because there are many points of view on whether or not a person’s criminal behavior is due to their mental health. Some believe that an unstable mental state of mind can highly influence a person’s decision of committing criminal actions. Others believe that mental health and crime are not related and that linking them together is a form of discrimination because it insinuates that those in our society that suffer from poor mental health are most likely to become a criminal due to their misunderstood behavior not being considered a normality in society. In this report I will go into detail of what mental health and mental illness is, what the differentiates a normal and a mentally unstable criminal, give examples of criminal cases where the defendant’s state of mind was brought up, introduce theories surrounding why one would commit crimes due to their mental health, and lastly I will discuss how the criminal justice system has been modified to accommodate mental health issues.
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...
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.