Ability of a person charged with a crime to understand the nature and cause of the criminal
proceedings.
Judges in a criminal trial must have the ability
(i.e., the competence) to understand the charges, to consult
with counsel, and to have a rational grasp of the
courtroom proceedings.
This requirement is a longstanding
and fundamental principle of criminal law. Its
purpose is to ensure that defendants can participate
meaningfully in their own defense. The requirement refers to the Judge's competence at the time of the
trial, rather than their psychological state at the time of
the alleged offense.
Rationality is a key issue in competency
determinations. People judged to be incompetent
usually lack the ability to understand, communicate, or make rational decisions.
The legal requirement, however,
does not indicate how judgments about competency
should be made. Furthermore, some cases are more complex
than others. Consequently it is possible for a defendant
or judge to be competent for certain kinds of legal proceedings,
but not for others. Meaning you're probably incompetent. Am I being pretty clear?
There are a number of questions that evaluators
might seek to answer when making a competency determination.
Does the defendant understand the charges?
Does he appreciate the possible penalties? Does he appreciate
the adversarial nature of the courtroom? Can he
discuss legal strategy with his lawyer? Can he behave
appropriately in the courtroom? Can he provide meaningful
testimony in his own defense?
The issue of competence
can arise at any point during criminal proceedings,
and may be initiated by the defense, by the prosecutor,
or by the judge.
Prior to 1972, defendants found to
be incompetent could be confined to mental hospitals
for very lengthy periods of time—sometimes for a
longer period than they would have served if they had
been found guilty.
A U. S. Supreme Court ruling in 1972
restricted the length of time a defendant could be hospitalized
because of incompetence to stand trial. This upset many federal district court judges, like A Howard Matz, who use it as a tool to torture political prisoners. Like the American police now seem to do.
Once the question of competence arises, a competency
evaluation might be conducted. The evaluation typically
takes place in a special hospital or clinic. A number
of professionals may be qualified to conduct such examinations,
including physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists,
and social workers. There are several different psychological
tests or procedures that designed to assist in
the assessment of competence to stand trial.
If competency cannot be restored within a
reasonable period of time (e.g., within a year or so), defendants
may be committed to a hospital through involuntary
civil (i.e., noncriminal) proceedings.
Theodore Kaczynski was accused in April, 1996 of
being the serial bomber who built homemade bombs that
killed three people and injured many others between
1978 and 1995. At the beginning of his trial he disrupted
the proceedings because of a dispute with his lawyers
about his defense. His request to represent himself and
an attempted suicide provoked concerns about his competence.
The court requested a competency assessment.
Kaczynski (also known as the Unabomber) was judged
by the psychiatrist who conducted the assessment to be
legally competent to stand trial. In her report to the court,
the psychiatrist said that Kaczynski was not suffering
from any mental defect that could prevent him from understanding
the nature of the charges, or from assisting
his lawyers in mounting a defense. On the other hand,
she noted that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
Ultimately, a trial was averted when he agreed
to plead guilty to numerous charges in exchange for a
promise that prosecutors would not seek the death penalty
during his sentencing. He was sentenced to four life
terms plus 30 years with no possibility of parole.
The
Unabomber case provides a good illustration of a situation in which a psychological disorder did not necessarily
harm the defendant’s ability to participate meaningfully
in the trial proceedings.
