Independent film production week 5 discussion post

Competency

The author of this response is to comprehend and realize what it means to be federally competent to stand trial. The author is asked to give two hypothetical examples of where a person would not be competent to stand trial. The author is also asked to explain why precisely the person would not be competent to stand trial. Generally speaking, federal defendants are given one of a set of approved competency test batteries to determine whether they are fit to stand trial and, if not, whether/when that is potentially/likely to occur (if ever).

Two Hypothetical Examples

As for the first hypothetical example of someone that is not fit for trial, a great example would be someone who is truly disconnected from reality and has no concept of right or wrong. As such, it would be judged that they would be the true definition of a psychopath and thus had no fix on reason, lucidity or morality. Of course, some people will try to fake this condition and will couple it with an insanity plea but a seasoned forensic psychologist and/or psychiatrist should be able to tell the difference between someone who is playing a charade and someone who is truly out of their mind.

This first example person would not be competent because they were not aware that they were doing things wrong and were not in their right mind. Even those this sort of offender can and should be dealt with, the solution is usually hospitalization and/or commitment so as to protect the person from themselves as well as protect society from the actions of the psychotic person. However, traditional criminal charges and courts cannot always be applied to people that clearly have no capacity to know right and wrong and act in a manner consistent with the same.

A second hypothetical example would be someone who may or may not have been lucid at the time of the offense but is now under trial and is unable, as a matter of capacity and not preference, to assist in their own defense. Even if they were in a solid state of mind during the crime itself, that does not mean that they automatically will be when the trial comes. If the trial comes and the person is not competent and/or able to assist in their own defense, there is a good chance that the trial will be delayed until the person can be treated and thus be able to assist in their own defense or it's also a possibility that such competence will never be present and the alleged offender would have to be treated as such.

The second person would not be competent because they have to be able to have the lucidity and self-awareness to answer questions and know what is going on during the trial. After all, if they are innocent yet they are not lucid, they would potentially be convicted when they should not be because they can end up doing or saying things that condemn their fate with the jury and/or the judge.