![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jun. 20th, 2008
The decision was 7-2 in favor of allowing judges to deem that a defendant may be sufficiently mentally competent to stand trial, but not sufficiently mentally competent to defend themselves without an attorney.
On the one hand (the majority), Justice Stephen Breyer writes that mental competency is a spectrum, not a binary condition.
But on the other hand (the dissent), Justice Antonin Scalia writes that:
Note that this decision was not based on a disruptive defendant. Note also that part of determining whether a defendant is sufficiently competent to stand trial, the defendant must be able to "assist their lawyer with their own defense". But many defendants in this situation are working with court-appointed attorneys, and many may well seek to dismiss them for being too apathetic or just plain incompetent. Go thru enough of those, and the desire to assert the right to defend oneself could be quite strong.
Except that there's a reason why the Constitution recognizes the need for an attorney in order to get due process: the legal process is a tricky one, and in most cases it is best navigated by trained professionals.
Except that there's a reason why the Constitution recognizes the right to an attorney, not a requirement to have one. Sometimes, the very same qualities that make a trained professional refuse to admit justifiable extra-legal behavior, which is exactly what a trial is for.
And this also opens a potentially infinite corridor: how many distinct levels of mental competence are there going to be for trial judges to consider?
This case is a mess. And despite the lop-sidedness of this ruling, I don't think this issue is going to go away.
On the one hand (the majority), Justice Stephen Breyer writes that mental competency is a spectrum, not a binary condition.
But on the other hand (the dissent), Justice Antonin Scalia writes that:
"At a time when all society is trying to mainstream the mentally impaired, the Court permits them to be deprived of a basic constitutional right – for their own good"
Note that this decision was not based on a disruptive defendant. Note also that part of determining whether a defendant is sufficiently competent to stand trial, the defendant must be able to "assist their lawyer with their own defense". But many defendants in this situation are working with court-appointed attorneys, and many may well seek to dismiss them for being too apathetic or just plain incompetent. Go thru enough of those, and the desire to assert the right to defend oneself could be quite strong.
Except that there's a reason why the Constitution recognizes the need for an attorney in order to get due process: the legal process is a tricky one, and in most cases it is best navigated by trained professionals.
Except that there's a reason why the Constitution recognizes the right to an attorney, not a requirement to have one. Sometimes, the very same qualities that make a trained professional refuse to admit justifiable extra-legal behavior, which is exactly what a trial is for.
And this also opens a potentially infinite corridor: how many distinct levels of mental competence are there going to be for trial judges to consider?
This case is a mess. And despite the lop-sidedness of this ruling, I don't think this issue is going to go away.
My younger daughter, with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
alyveritya's help and YouTube account, has made her first video.
(Or go watch on YouTube, if LJ is behaving weird again.)
alyveritya's help and YouTube account, has made her first video.(Or go watch on YouTube, if LJ is behaving weird again.)