Incompetency to stand trial
One topic which I found most interesting throughout this course was that of incompetency to stand trial. Incompetency is a mental state which makes one present in the body, but not the mind. The standard in which someone is deemed competent to stand trial is if “they have sufficient present ability to consult with their lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.. and a rational as well as functional understanding of the proceedings” (Bartol, 2016, pg. 221). Anyone who is considered incompetent will not be tried.
In competency is interesting because it’s not only based on mental or emotional characteristics. It can also be utilized if someone has a lack of understanding of the court process, such as personal rights, or functions of members of the court proceedings. This to me is an interesting point based on the fact that so many people can claim incompetency off of this alone. Evaluations are necessary to ultimately decide who can stand trial, and who may not be able to. In some cases, multiple hearings may be held to determine competency… One fact that stood out to me was “nationwide, only four out of every five (80%) of the evaluated defendants are found competent” (Bartol, 2016, pg. 222). (Retrieved from my original discussion post)
I found this particularly interesting because I have a rape case pending trial, and the defense attorney is pushing incompetency since the defendant is a senior citizen and has some mental health issues. As promised, in my first post, I said I would update the class on the status of the, pending the rapidness of the court case. As I assumed, the defense attorney’s first action was to plead incompetency due to age induced mental illness, as well as pre-existing conditions which was the reason the offender was in the halfway house to begin with. I was browsing through some of the defense lawyer’s paperwork which he submitted, and one area in which he stated the defendant suffered from is PTSD.
Without being too specific, my offender is a senior citizen who served in the Vietnam War. His mental history suffered drastically upon his return from the war. Since a young age, he battled PTSD from being involved in such a life changing event. This then toppled into his excessive use of drugs, inability to keep a steady income, homelessness, and eventually criminal activity which led to him being court ordered to a group home in our town. He has an extensive history involving hospitalizations for his PTSD which was actually coupled with psychosis. The trauma in which he endured followed him throughout his adulthood, and ultimately plays a factor in how his court proceedings will continue. It’s a viable defense for incompetency, and will certainly be taken into consideration as it moves forward in the judiciary system.
In this case, mens rea, or the state of mind of the offender, is being taken into the question. “Most U.S. jurisdictions allow mental health expert testimony to refute mens rea, whereas some jurisdictions restrict such testimony to the insanity defense” (Berger). In Rhode Island, this is a feasible thing for them to use as defense. The lawyer wants to argue that the offender lacked the state of mind to realize what he was doing due to his long term PTSD. This has been interesting to follow, especially after medical records came back proving that some sort of penetration had occurred. In the victim maintaining that it was not consensual, and the defendant does not plead guilty, it will be interesting to watch this develop further!
Source:
Bartol, C. R. & Bartol, A.M. (2016). Criminal Behavior: A Psychological Approach. 11th edition.
Berger, Omri, et al. PTSD as a Criminal Defense: A Review of Case Law. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 1 Dec. 2012, jaapl.org/content/40/4/509.