Psychology Wiki

Changes: Competence (law)


Back to page

(New page: {{SpecsPsy}} In law, '''competence''' concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings. Defendants that do not possess sufficient "competence" are usually...)
(Redirecting to Competency to stand trial)
Line 1: Line 1:
#redirect[[Competency to stand trial]]
In law, '''competence''' concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings. Defendants that do not possess sufficient "competence" are usually excluded from [[Crime|criminal]] [[prosecution]], while witnesses found not to possess requisite competence cannot testify.
==United States==
In [[United States law]], this protection has been ruled by the [[United States Supreme Court]] to be guaranteed under the [[due process clause]]. If the court determines that a defendant's mental condition makes him unable to understand the proceedings, or that he is unable to help in his defense, he is found incompetent. The [[competency evaluation (law)|competency evaluation]], as determined in ''[[Dusky v. United States]]'', is whether the accused "has sufficient present 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." Being determined incompetent is substantially different from undertaking an [[insanity defense]]; competence regards the defendant's state of mind at the time of the trial, while insanity regards his state of mind at the time of the crime. It has also been referred to as a "7:30 exam".
The word '''incompetent''' is also used to describe persons who lack mental [[Capacity (law)|capacity]] to make [[contract]]s, handle their [[financial]] and other personal matters such as consenting to medical treatment, etc. and need a [[legal guardian]] to handle their affairs.
In 2006, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit]] considered the legal standards for determining competence to stand trial and to waive counsel using the standards of objective unreasonableness under the [[Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act]].<ref>{{cite web
|title=Standards for Determination of Competence
|publisher=Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
===Competence to be executed===
An inmate on [[death row]] has a right to be evaluated for competency by a [[psychologist]] to determine if sentence can be carried out. This is a result of [[Ford v. Wainwright]], a case filed by a [[Florida]] inmate on [[death row]] who took his case to the [[United States Supreme Court]], declaring he was not competent to be executed. The court ruled in his favor, stating that a forensic professional must make that competency evaluation and, if the inmate is found incompetent, must provide treatment to aid in his gaining competency so the execution can take place.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Ford v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 399
|publisher=Cornell Law School
===Competence and Native Americans===
Competency was used to determine whether individual Indians could use land that was allotted to them from the General Allotment Act (GAA) also known as the [[Dawes Act]]. The practice was used after in 1906 with the passing of the Burk Act, also known as the forced patenting act. This Act further amended the GAA to give the Secretary of the Interior the power to issue allotees a patent in fee simple to people classified ‘competent and capable.’ The criteria for this determination is unclear but meant that allotees deemed ‘competent’ by the Secretary of the Interior would have their land taken out of trust status, subject to taxation, and could be sold by the allottee.
The Act of June 25th 1910 further amends the GAA to give the Secretary of the Interior the power to sell the land of deceased allotees or issue patent and fee to legal heirs. This decision is based on a determination made by the Secretary of Interior whether the legal heirs are ‘competent’ or ‘incompetent’ to manage their own affairs.
===Competency case law===
[[Adjudicative competence]] has been developed through a body of [[common law]] in the United States. The landmark cases are the following:<ref>
{{cite web
|title=AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial -- Mossman et al. 35 (4): S3 -- Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
*''[[Dusky v. United States]]'' (1960)
*''[[Jackson v. Indiana]]'' (1972)
*''[[Drope v. Missouri]]'' (1975)
*''[[Ford v. Wainwright]]'' (1986)
*''[[Godinez v. Moran]]'' (1993)
*''[[Pate v. Robinson]]''
*''[[Estelle v. Smith]]'' (1981)
*''[[Medina v. California]]'' (1992)
*''[[Riggins v. Nevada]]'' (1992)
*''[[Cooper v. Oklahoma]]'' (1996)
*''[[Sell v. United States]]'' (2003)
==England and Wales==
{{Copyedit|date=May 2007}}
In [[English law]], [[fitness to plead]] is the equivalent. There is no reason to punish a criminal if one did not know what one did wrong in the first place. When defendants are not able to participate in the legal system, the legal system should not apply to them. There are several different levels of competence. One level is known as adjudicative competence. This level basically means that defendants are obviously competent enough to plead guilty for a crime that they committed and do voluntarily. There are many loopholes in which defendants can claim not having competence at the time of the occurrence,such as momentary amnesia,which is rarely ever used, and medication use-- "I am competent with medication, but when I committed the act of crime I was off my medication." ,that defense rarely works .
==See also==
*[[Adjudicative competence]]
[[Category:Mental health law]]
[[Category:Forensic psychology]]
{{enWP|Competence (law)}}

Latest revision as of 22:58, March 12, 2008

  1. redirectCompetency to stand trial

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki