History Lesson Part 2: Psychology and COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL
Jackson's attorney filed for a new trial, contending that Jackson was not insane,
but that because his mental retardation was so severe, he could never attain competence
to stand trial. Jackson's commitment under these circumstances
amounted to a life sentence without his ever having been convicted of a crime! By
the time the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, Jackson had already been
"hospitalized" for three and a half years. Justice Blackmun, writing for a unanimous
court, concurred with Jackson's attorney that Indiana's rule was unconstitutional.
Jackson was freed.
The Jackson's case resolved one issue-that a person who would never
be competent to stand trial could not be detained indefinitely. Many others
are still unresolved. What of a person who might some day be competent to
stand trial? How long may he or she be held? Some states set no limits.
Others, like New York, limit incarceration, depending upon the charge.
Federal courts require release after eighteen months. But do even those limited
periods violate a person's right to bail and to a speedy trial? And should
they count against time served if convicted? Can a person be required to
take medications against his or her will in order to be competent to stand
trial? Practices in these matters vary enormously across states and are unlikely
to be systematically resolved in the near future because such defendants,
by definition, often lack the resources to press their claims vigorously.
As a result, some have urged that the notion of incompetence to stand
trial be abolished on the grounds that even if impaired, the defendant is bet-
the incompetent defendant's accused status, and his virtually automatic
civil commitment. This is a cruelly ironic way by which to ensure that the
permanently incompetent defendant is fairly treated" (Burt and Morns
1972, p. 75). This view, however, violates the Supreme Court's dictum in
Pate v. Robinson that "the conviction of an accused person while he is legally
incompetent violated due process..."*
END
but that because his mental retardation was so severe, he could never attain competence
to stand trial. Jackson's commitment under these circumstances
amounted to a life sentence without his ever having been convicted of a crime! By
the time the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, Jackson had already been
"hospitalized" for three and a half years. Justice Blackmun, writing for a unanimous
court, concurred with Jackson's attorney that Indiana's rule was unconstitutional.
Jackson was freed.
The Jackson's case resolved one issue-that a person who would never
be competent to stand trial could not be detained indefinitely. Many others
are still unresolved. What of a person who might some day be competent to
stand trial? How long may he or she be held? Some states set no limits.
Others, like New York, limit incarceration, depending upon the charge.
Federal courts require release after eighteen months. But do even those limited
periods violate a person's right to bail and to a speedy trial? And should
they count against time served if convicted? Can a person be required to
take medications against his or her will in order to be competent to stand
trial? Practices in these matters vary enormously across states and are unlikely
to be systematically resolved in the near future because such defendants,
by definition, often lack the resources to press their claims vigorously.
As a result, some have urged that the notion of incompetence to stand
trial be abolished on the grounds that even if impaired, the defendant is bet-
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972).
the incompetent defendant's accused status, and his virtually automatic
civil commitment. This is a cruelly ironic way by which to ensure that the
permanently incompetent defendant is fairly treated" (Burt and Morns
1972, p. 75). This view, however, violates the Supreme Court's dictum in
Pate v. Robinson that "the conviction of an accused person while he is legally
incompetent violated due process..."*
END
NOTES:
We've got a new friend for you to consider today.
Based on your profile, Experix could be a great fit. Take a look and let us know:
Experimax What is it?
Experix offers convenient walk-in repair & service for iPhones, Android, laptops and other popular tech devices
No appointments needed and most repairs (cracked screens, battery replacement, etc.) are made while customer waits
Experix also sells new and preowned tech products, with a focus on Apple products
How does it make money?
Repairs, upgrades, and other services for Apple and other devices
Sales and trade-ins of preowned Apple products
Who is it for?
Anyone looking to open multiple franchise locations
Interest and familiarity with technology is helpful but unnecessary
What would you do as a franchisee?
Hire and manage your team that makes the repairs
Manage local marketing and customer service
So, what do you think?
We've got a new friend for you to consider today.
Based on your profile, Experix could be a great fit. Take a look and let us know:
Experimax What is it?
Experix offers convenient walk-in repair & service for iPhones, Android, laptops and other popular tech devices
No appointments needed and most repairs (cracked screens, battery replacement, etc.) are made while customer waits
Experix also sells new and preowned tech products, with a focus on Apple products
How does it make money?
Repairs, upgrades, and other services for Apple and other devices
Sales and trade-ins of preowned Apple products
Who is it for?
Anyone looking to open multiple franchise locations
Interest and familiarity with technology is helpful but unnecessary
What would you do as a franchisee?
Hire and manage your team that makes the repairs
Manage local marketing and customer service
So, what do you think?