Competency vs. Insanity
Competency
to stand trial demands that a defendant understands the purpose and nature of
the legal proceedings and be able to cooperate effectively with counsel in
defense. To appreciate the proceedings, a defendant has to be able to
understand the charges and the penalties if convicted. On the other hand,
sanity refers to the defendant mental status while committing a crime. A
defendant is considered insane if the act’s commission was due to mental defect
or disease, and thus lacking, the capacity either to conform his act to the
law’s requirement or appreciate the wrongfulness of his act (Stafford & Sellbom, n.d.).
The
legal standard employed to establish competency through evaluation demand that
a forensic psychiatrist employ mental status examination to evaluate the
general mental health of the defendant. This includes cognitive ability,
memory, judgment, understanding and appreciation. The psycholegal questions
that need to be address include the current mental state of the defendant. This
is to evaluate whether the current mental state of the defendant is healthy
enough for the defendant to understand the charges, penalties involved, to
follow the court proceeding and to liaise with the counsel for his or her
defense (Stafford & Sellbom, n.d.).
On the other hand, the legal standards used to
identify insanity through the evaluation of the defendant state of mind while
committing the crime. The Psycholegal questions to be evaluated is, was the
defendant drunk or intoxicated, was he/she depressed, mentally ill or in any
other condition that could have prevented him from understanding what he was
doing?
A
mentally ill individual can be both insane and incompetent based on when the
condition started. If he was mentally ill during the incident and still is
during the trial, then he is insane and cannot be responsible for the crime. If
insane he will be acquitted and thus, he will not have to stand trials, though even
if he does will be considered incompetent to stand trial since the condition
still prevails.
When
a defendant is found incompetent to stand trials, the case may be delayed to
give the defendant an opportunity to be treated and gain competency. Therefore,
the defendant should be forced to undergo medical treatment to gain competency
if possible. A good example for this is the case the man who was involved in
Arizona shooting in January 2011. The judge suspended the case until Jared
Loughner was more competent to stand before the court (N.a., 2011).
References
N.a.
(2011). Competency versus insanity. Criminal
Law Consulting. Retrieved from <
http://www.criminallawconsulting.com/1/post/2011/09/competency-versus-insanity.html>
Stafford,
K. P., & Sellbom, M. O. (n.d.) Assessment of competence to stand trial
Chapter 18. Retrieved form < http://lp.wileypub.com/HandbookPsychology/SampleChapters/Volume11.pdf>
Courtesy of research papers writing service