Competency to Stand Trial in the United States - Research Paper Example

2). Many other cases cited these legal landmarks. Ten (10) of those cases offered by Elkins, James R. are listed in the appended Table of 10 CST Cases from 1975-2001. II. Testing for Sanity Incompetence to stand trial is not the same as insanity defense. According to the SHouse Law Group (2012), citing the following: “Penal code 1370 PC (a)(1)(A)”, and “People v. Crosier (1974) 41 Cal App 3d 712, 716”, and “Penal Code 1367(a) PC”, and “Penal Code 1367(the distinction is that insanity defense is a complete legal defense whereby the defendant will be deemed not guilty permanently, whereas CST was created to treat the defendant for a future trial after treatment and can still be convicted for a criminal offense.

It also matters to know that insanity defense is the condition of a defendant being insane at the time of the commission of the crime, whereas CST is during the trial. According to People v. Crosier (1974), the insanity defense depends on (in California courts) the results of the “M Naghton Test” which considers the answers to two questions, namely, “…first, did the defendant have sufficient mental capacity to know and understand what he was doing, and second, did he know and understand that it was wrong and a violation of the rights of another?” III. How CST Was Established Pirelli, Gianni; Gottdiener, William H.

; and Zapf, Patricia A.(2011, p.2) traced that people in USA have been enjoying the constitutional “right to be competent to stand trial” since the early 19th century. In a review of 68 cases from 1967 to 2008, incompetent and competent defendants were compared and analyzed. Their findings showed: (1) there was 8 times the number of defendants found to be with psychotic disorder among those found incompetent. (2) Unemployed defendants deemed incompetent to be tried in court were twice the number among those incompetent. (3) Those previously hospitalized due to psychiatric disease were twice the number of those without record of hospitalization for the same purpose among the defendants found incompetent for trial.

The US Supreme Court (1960, p. 402) defines competence as the “ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding – and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him” aside from knowing the time, place, and having some recollections. The National Judicial College (NJC,2012) has an online list of SC decisions pertaining to the issue of Mental Competency since 1960 to 2008. These cases serve as precedents used as landmarks decisions for new cases with similar issues.

Such rulings should never be negated in the course of history without any sound basis for doing so, since they are models of sound judgement in a civilized society. IV. Mental Illness and Criminal Behavior Since mental illness is commonly used as a defence, the apprehension will normally be about the development of a trend that can acquit most criminals. How then does the court assure the public that this cannot happen? CST should not prejudice criminal complaints against defendants because the law presumes “competence to stand trial” (Elkins, J.R. 2011, par.5). It will take some facts for the defendant’s lawyer to question his client’