It has long been found necessary that a defendant be able to assist, understand and participate in the legal process. Putting on trial those who are so impaired that they cannot aid in their defense or are unaware of the nature and purpose of the proceedings against them is considered to challenge both the worth of the legal process and notions about fairness. An underlying mental disorder can hinder a defendant in challenging charges made against him or providing important facts about their case. In Dusky V United States (1960) the Supereme Court ruled that defendants must possess “sufficient present ability to consult with his/her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational undetstanding (and have a) rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him”. The words “sufficient” ability and “reasonable” understanding are reffering to the defendants capacities, which do not necessarily have to be flawless. Reference to “present” ability makes evident that we should only take into consideration the abilities of the defendant at the present time and during the future of the trial. A simple lack of knowledge of legal processes does not render somebody incompetent to stand trial. However, more then just the understanding of legal processes is necessary, a defendant must have the ability to appreciate and consider the facts of the case. Competence is ultimately decided by the judge, a mental health professional will however state their professional opinion that the judge will then take into consideration. Those who are found not competent to stand trial are commited to a mental institution until they regain competence. There are some instances where it is possible to involuntarily medicate a person if it will make ... ... middle of paper ... ...ing them competent to stand trial without the government proving that the administration of the drugs is appropriate. “that the drugs are substantially likely to render the defendant competent to stand trial; and that the less intrusive non-drug alternatives would likely be ineffective in accomplishing the same objective” (APA, US v Gomes). The APA also weighed in on Sell v US (2003) stating similar information with a few added points. Along with those stated previously, the APA also stated that the medications benefits outweigh the possible side effects of the medication. If there are any side effects to the medication, the government should show how said side effects will not hinder the defendants ability to defending himself. The US Supreme Court agreed with the APA and has made those four points mandatory in order to involuntarily medicate a criminal defendant.
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
While the advocates are working towards helping those who suffer from this problem a simple fix has yet to be found. Many states and courts still disagree on the terminology that defines someone as mentally retarded and the definition can be very grey. With education, time and advocates those who truly suffer from this illness can seek intervention and still have their rights protected under the U. S. Constitution and the eighth amendment.
Torture, for weeks, for months, for years, but it is somehow plausible to consider it help. The sane being shoved into a psych ward, drugged, and forced with erroneous treatments, yet this is regarded as the panacea? Mental institutes do not solve everyone’s problems. Forced treatment on the resistive or illegitimate mentally ill exemplifies the need to regain civil rights for patients. The current laws applied to the topic remain not enough to withhold these patients’ civil rights. Also, patients bias court cases while influenced by prescribed drugs. The stories and results of these foul acts are tremendously horrifying. As Americans we are born with our civil rights therefore these persons deserve justice.
Over the years the ways executions are performed have changed significantly to be less gruesome, Though even with these changes capital punishment still remains as inhumane and unconstitutional as it was before and effecting the lives of several people. The eighth amendment holds a strong cases against capital punishment. According to the University of Minnesota Human Rights Library the eighth amendment states “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. When our country allows these executions to continue it is allowing our rights to be trampled, no one deserves to be treated inhumanely. Beyond our constitutional rights being trampled, there has also been an extreme shortage in the three step drugs used in executions due to Pharmaceutical companies not wanting to be part of killing when there sole purpose is to provide to help people survive. That leaves one with the question, if there is a shortage in these drugs how are facilities still administering lethal injections? The answer is simple. “States are now buying drugs from illegal sources, ordering new ones from compounding ph...
Competence is known as the capacity to function meaningfully and knowingly in a legal proceeding. Concerns about a defendant’s competence comes down to the primary principle that within a criminal proceeding, one should not continue against a person who does not understand the nature of their crime and purpose for doing so. This results in the person not being able to assist in defending against the prosecution on the charges at hand. Ron Williams should have been considered incompetent to stand trial during his trial. Throughout the novel, Ron Williams had been known for being a little “off”. He had been in and out of psychiatric counseling and treatment. In February of 1985, Ron had been in court on accounts of escape charges. He took a plea deal and would most likely be dropped if he completed court ordered mental health counseling, stayed out of trouble, stayed in Pontotoc County, and refrained from alcohol. However, a few month later Ron was arrested with charges of intoxication and was sentenced to serve the rest of his sentence for the escaping charges, due to his sentence being revoked.
The issue of executing mentally ill criminals has been widely debated among the public. They debate on whether it is right or wrong to execute a person who does not possess the capacity to think correctly. The mental illness is a disease that destroys a person’s memory, emotion, and prevent one or more function of the mind running properly. The disease affects the way a person thinks, feels, behaves and relates to others.When a person is severely mentally ill, his/ her ability to appreciate reality lack so they aspire to do stuff that is meaningless. The sickness is triggered by an amalgamation of genetic, and environmental factors not a personal imperfection. On the death penalty website, Scott Panetti who killed his mother in-law and father-in-law reports that since 1983, over 60 people with mental illness or retardation have been executed in the United States (Panetti). The American Civil Liberties Union says that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who suffered from an earnest mental illness (ACLU).Some people apply the term crazy or mad to describe a person who suffers from astringent psychological disorders because a mad person look different than a mundane human being. The time has come for us to accept the fact that executing mentally ill offenders is not beneficial to society for many reasons. Although some mentally ill criminals have violated the law, we need to sustain a federal law that mentally ill criminals should not be put to death.
Lamb, H. R. (2004). Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system: Some perspectives. Psychiatric Quarterly, 108-126.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 states that in order to protect the rights of individuals who don’t have the capacity to make their own decisions they an independent Mental capacity Advocate is put in place to learn as much as possible about the individuals and act in their best interests.
Since 1978 over 280 death row inmates have been granted clemency. Most of the reasons someone is granted clemency is because of doubt about the guilty or judgments about the death penalty by the governor. Clemency is an act of grace, based on the policy of fairness, justice, and forgiveness. Clemency is a privilege and is not a right, and one who is granted clemency does not have the crime forgotten, as in amnesty, but is forgiven and treated more leniently for the criminal acts. Even though clemency is considered a privilege some states require a clemency review before the execution. Ohio requires a clemency review forty-five days before the execution. Clemency is used at the discretion of the governor and other officials,
The way in which liability is determined seems to be an irony in itself. The civil law requires people to act with reasonable care, meaning not hurting others or damaging property. Also it requires the defendant to do what a reasonable person would have done. (Cannell) However, my question is, if a person is not using a reasonable mind then isn’t that person insane or otherwise mentally handicapped?
The insanity defense pertains that the issue of the concept of insanity which defines the extent to which a person accused of crimes may be alleviated of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease. “The term insanity routinely attracts widespread public attention that is far out of proportion to the defense’s impact on criminal justice” (Butler,133). The decision of this defense is solely determined by the trial judge and the jury. They determine if a criminal suffers from a mental illness. The final determination of a mental disease is solely on the jury who uses evidence and information drawn from an expert witness. The result of such a determination places the individual accused, either in a mental facility, incarcerated or released from all charges. Due to the aforementioned factors, there are many problems raised by the insanity defense. Some problems would be the actual possibility of determining mental illness, justify the placement of the judged “mentally ill” offenders and the total usefulness of such a defense. In all it is believed that the insanity defense should be an invalid defense and that it is useless and should potentially be completely abolished.
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.
Under which theory or theories of product liability can Kolchek sue to recover for Litisha’s injuries? Could Kolchek sue Porter or Great Lakes?
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.