Dusky vs. US

set precedent for competency to stand trial

*must understand process

*must be able to function in process

Competency to stand trial

3 requirements

1. Understand charges and penalties
2. understand court personell and procedures (adversarial nature of court, evidentiary process)
3. Be able to work with defense attorney

outcome if found incompetent

1. Commited to a hospital
2. Jackson vs. Indiana: if unable to restore competency, must follow the rules of civil commitment or be released
3. Forced medication? controversial issue. Charles Sell set precedent that yes, you can but not without a hearing.

6 other comptencies

1. competency to plead
2. competency to execute a will
3. competency to waive miranda rights
4. competency to testify
5. competency to make decisions (finances, medical)
6. Competency to be executed:

• must understand he/she going to die
• must understand being punished for crime
• must be physically healthy

competency vs. insanity

competency is a current state

insanity is a retrospective state. insanity is a legal term

in order to be found guilty....

must prove defendent has:

actus rea - guilty act

mens rea - guilty mind (intent to commit crime)

if they don't have mens rea, they can plead insanity and NOT be held accountable for crime commited (but first must admit to crime).

Jackson vs. Indiana

set precedent that people can't just be locked up in mental hospitals forever

M'Naughton's Rules

AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME, INDIVIDUAL WAS SO AFFECTED THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW THE NATURE OF THE CIMRE OR DID NOT KNOW IT WAS WRONG

·         Nature: what they are doing (dissociative disorders)

·         Quality: The Effect of their behavior (don’t understand that a gun will actually kill someone). Delusions – can’t hurt a robot with a knife.

·         Wrongfulness: That it is wrong, or that society sees it as wrong

o   Can get sticky people can understand right and wrong, but some delusions make certain behavior right for them. Like killing is wrong but God told him to do it.

Durham vs. Us

• DURHAM RULE: THE CRIME WAS THE PRODUCT OF A MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT
• 1950s: the Durham decision states that any act that is the “product” of a mental illness is grounds for  a finding of insanity (NO ONE FOLLOWS THIS ANYMORE)

o   Burden of proof on prosecutor to prove defendant was sane.

o   Very Broad Definition: you could conceivably say any behavior was a product of a mental illness

o   Increase in cases

o   Gave them little responsibility and a huge increase of cases (one reason was because the burden of proof was put on the prosecutor).

ALI/Brawner Rule

• ALI RULE: AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME, AS A RESULT OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, THE PERSON LACKED SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY TO EITHER APPRECIATE THE CRIMINALITY OR TO CONFORM TO LAWS
• changed the standard being applied to the persons behavior, did not change the fact that the prosecution had to prove someone was sane.

o   Antisocial personality disorder specifically excluded from this

Burden of proof still on prosecution.

Hinckley and Reagan

• 1982: John Hinckley attempts to assassinate president Reagan and is found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI)

o   Congress held hearings

o   Dropped irresistible impulse-the volitional prong (he would have done that no matter if he would get caught)

§  Now not part of the Federal definition (part of some states def. but not NC)

o   Put Burden of proof on defense.

o   Where things stand in terms of federal definition.

irrisistable impulse rule

at the time of the crime, the individual was driven by an irresistable impulse to perform the act or had a diminished capacity to resist performing the act

American Psychiatric Assocation Definion of Insanity

at the time of hte crime, as a result of mental disease or mental retardation, the person was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct

grave disability

requires that people be so incapcitated with mental disorders that they cannot care for their basic needs for food, clothing, shelter.

used in civil commitment hearings

80% of involuntary commitments are commited on grounds of grave disability

dangerousness to self and others

individual is an immanent danger to him or herself

individual is an immanent danger to others

both used in involuntary commitment

right to treatment

for people who have been committed

Wyatt vs. Stickney ('72)

even in prison, some people are treated

right to refuse treatment

some places require informed consent from the individual before giving them drug therapy or any other form of treatment

sometimes families can intervene

clinicians' duty

may break confidentiality if

1. threat to harm others
2. suspected child or elder abuse