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…
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…
(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,
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
According to Szasz (2005), “In principle, the mental patient is considered competent (until proven [otherwise]). In practice, the client is regularly treated as if he were incompetent and the psychiatrist who asserts that he needs treatment is treated as if he were the patient’s guardian” (p.78). During the 1940’s patients who were mentally ill were considered “legally incompetent” when committed into a mental health facility. Relatives of the patients could release them by providing care in their homes for the client. Unfortunately, Szasz (2005) claims, that “the treatment of mental diseases is no more successful today than it was in the past” (p.78).
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
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.
Next, it says that police may not continue to interrogate a suspect after he makes a request
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
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)
McLellan, F. (2006). Mental health and justice: the case of Andrea Yates. The Lancet, 1951-1954.
Most countries in the world today do not use juries, and only a small percentage of cases in the United States are decided by juries. So it has been proven successful and holding trials without juries are certainly a possibility for our future. In may in fact be in society’s best interest to change or rather improve a system that is outdated and doesn’t always serve the people justice. A person has a right to choose between a jury of his peers of a bench (judge only) trial. It’s likely that citizens may prefer a jury trial as they may feel that pool of random citizens may be less critical or harsh than a judge, but in all honesty, if we’re talking about fairness, a judge who is an informed and trained professional definitely has a better idea of how to sentence a person on trial and looks at the evidence in a holistic way. A bench trial is better because it’s more efficient and cost-effective, judges are well-educated professionals, and juries may be biased or incompetent.
The second condition to be established is whether the defendant had a “disease of the mind”. This condition is