The Competency To Stand Trial

To evaluate and analyze a case involving the competency to stand trial (CST), we can refer back to a 1960 Supreme Court decision in the Dusky vs. U.S. CST is the determination of whether a defendant or individual is mentally fit or capable of participating in legal proceedings or to stand trial. “CST serve to safeguard the accuracy of criminal adjudications, guarantee a fair trial, preserve the dignity and integrity of legal processes, and ensure that the defendant knows why he is being punished if he is found guilt” (Felthous, 2011).
Milton Dusky was charged with assisting to kidnapping and the rape of an underage female. Experts declared that Dusky was suffering from schizophrenia but was competent to stand trial; he received a sentence of 45 years (Felthous, 2011). This case provides issues and matters that forensic psychologists should study and be able to determine. The case of Dusky vs U.S provided precedent to help forensic psychologists be able to study mental disorders and illnesses that can affect legal and court procedures.
A case that deals with criminal responsibility often involves the criminal and anyone else who helped in ways to commit this crime. The Britannica Legal Encyclopedia defines criminal responsibility as “a crime that applies to those who perform criminal acts but also to those who aid and abet a perpetrator by way of providing information, implements, or practical help” (Encyclopedia Britannica). However, it is also explained that in cases of persons suffering from mental disorders and illnesses, the consequences may or should be relieved (Poortinga & Guyer, 2007). The case of U.S v Allen in 2006 is an example of criminal responsibility and intentions of crime. Bobby Allen was indicted on a count ...

... middle of paper ...

...sas’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, he may be “indefinitely confined” because of his crimes and because he suffers from a mental disorder that declares dangers and risks on society. Hendricks appealed this decision claiming that the Act would violate and contradict the concept of ex post facto and double jeopardy. However, Supreme Court found that the Act is not confining Hendricks under criminal process but civilly committing him to involuntary confinement because of his dangers. This case is a landmark case that defines how important small details are when determining the outcome of decision and use of judicial process. It also shows how important it is for forensic psychologists to understand how mental disorders can affect the legal process. Thus, study of the relationships between mental disorders, legal consequences, and civil commitment is very important.