Competency concepts and frameworks

Criminals face court every, single day in all fifty states for a variety of crimes. Some are mentally disabled, some suffer from acute or chronic mental illness, and some are of sound body and mind. In order to differentiate which person if fit for trial, the Legal Standards for Competency are used in order to avoid any added difficulties during the trial. The questions however is, are these standards helpful in differentiating between the "fit" and the "unfit"?

"The legal construct of competency to stand trial requires that a defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as factual understanding of the legal proceedings" (Jamieson, 2009, p. 67). This quote, derived from Jamieson, explains how competency is determined for criminals on trial. However, there's a lot of room in this definition for error. Some people on trial may have some disability that, although does not affect them mentally, may affect how they communicate. If someone cannot understand someone or communicate with someone effectively, does that generate grounds for incompetency?

"Defendants who are found by the court to be incompetent to stand trial may be referred for competency restoration treatment, depending upon the guidelines of the particular jurisdiction" (Jamieson, 2009, p. 67). Typically a lot of times this action may be used on people who suffer from mental illness. They may be deemed incompetent by a psychiatrist and sent to a mental institution until that person is deemed competent. If the person suffer from long-standing and chronic mental illness, depending on the crime, the person may stay in a mental institution all their lives instead of spend their days in jail. If they do become competent, they may face trial again and a possibility of jail.

Some who work in the criminal justice system may use the IFI to identify mental health issues. "The IFI is a structured interview and rating scale designed to take into account both legal and mental health issues, and calls for an interdisciplinary approach to the assessment of competency" (Golding, 1984, pp. 321). The IFI has been and relied upon to determine whether any mental or legal issues exist. It can be quite helpful in determining the "sanity" of a defendant. It may also help provide evidence should the defendant be mentally ill.

This is the purpose of the legal standards for competency. It is used to help facilitate and determine whether or not the defendant understand the court and criminal proceedings. People who perform crimes and are considered incompetent may face different consequences than a person who is deemed fit. In fact many criminals that do not want jail time attempt to hide their competency by pretending to have a mental illness. These standards and the actions set forth by the standards help differentiate from the ones who are faking and the ones who are genuinely incompetent. "According to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Jackson v. Indiana, mental health professionals must determine if a defendant has "substantial" probability of regaining competency through treatment in the "foreseeable" future" (Hubbard, 2003, pp. 145-155).

The legal standards of competency are placed for the benefit of the defendant and the court:

First, the rest within the legal system is a functional one- what is required is that a defendant, facing these particular charges, in light of the existing evidence and available defenses, be able to reasonably comprehend, understand, and assist just like the "average" defendant in the criminal justice system" (Golding, 1984, pp. 322).

If the defendant truly is incompetent to stand trial and no one assessed or determined this, the court will have trouble gaining any credible information from the defendant, moreover, the defendant could be put in a hostile situation in jail. Another possibility is the defendant could harm people within the jail or harm himself as most people with mental illness have some tendency to self-harm or harm others. The assessment of competency thus becomes an integral part of the justice system.

This integral part of the system must have standards in place that facilitate not only ease of assessment, but most importantly accuracy. Several studies have determined predictor variables that help determine which defendants are competent or incompetent. In a study by Hubbard, (2003), he states: "The analyses suggest that none of the three sets of predictor variables -- demographic, criminal, and psychiatric -- taken alone significantly outperforms the other. However, psychiatric variables performed slightly better than demographic and criminal variables in correctly classifying unrestorable defendants" Hubbard, 2003, pp. 145-155). These variables together help "speed up" the process as well as more efficiently determine the mental state of defendants. There are other measures in place to assist with the process of determining.

One such measure is due process. "Due process also requires that defendants not be tried if they do not have a sufficient present ability to help their attorneys and a rational and functional understanding of the proceedings against them" (Bartol, 2012, p. 157). Due process helps defendants and the lawyers that work with them in several ways. It assures there is proper communication between defendant and lawyer. It also places another measure to help in determining the mental state of a defendant by assessing the level of understanding and communication.

Standards change in time and the Supreme Court may adapt standards to apply to guilty pleas. "The Supreme Court has ruled (Godinez v. Moran, 1993) that the Dusky standards apply to guilty pleas as well; that is, defendants pleading guilty must have a rational understanding of the court process" (Bartol, 2012, p. 157). Everything is meant to provide evidence that the defendant has a rational understanding. This phrase is used often because this helps avoid any kind of mistrial or possible errors along the way. Courts want a fast trial. They don't want any hang-ups. "A decision that the defendant is competent to stand trial allows for further procedure through the criminal courts, consistent with the right to a speedy trial even if mentally ill" (Heller, 1981, p. 267).