Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
It is clear that Mr. Moran met the legal standard for competency. Because of concerns about his competency, likely prompted by Moran's suicide attempt, the trial court had Moran examined by two psychiatrists. Both doctors found him competent. The dissent attempted to question Moran's competency by citing notes one of the psychiatrist had made, which suggested that Moran's guilt may have hampered his ability to give his best efforts towards his defense. Given that Moran was responsible for the senseless deaths of four people, the fact that he felt guilt and was somewhat impaired by it was probably more indicative of mental competency than if he had not felt guilt. Competency to stand trial cannot and should not be confused with competency to escape a guilty verdict.
While I agree that represented and unrepresented individuals should have the same competency standards, and believe that Moran was competent to stand trial, I am disturbed by some of the thresholds for competency. When competency is assessed, trial courts are frequently looking for a definable mental...
However, many trial courts are woefully uneducated about mental retardation and its impact on competency. Concerns about mental retardation and criminal justice have had some impact on the criminal law, for example there is currently a moratorium on executing the retarded, but courts still have not instituted sufficient ways of determining mental competency when a defendant's impairment is retardation rather than mental illness. Instead, many trial judges adhere to stereotypes, and believe that they would be able to recognize a mentally retarded defendant by appearance or demeanor. The reality is that many retarded people who are higher-functioning may appear fully competent, but still be unable to fully understand the criminal process. Therefore, I believe retarded individuals should not be considered competent to stand trial, with or without the assistance of an attorney, and that a competency hearing, where a defendant is represented by counsel and cannot waive that right, should take place in those cases.
Competency to Stand Trial DRAWING THE LINE At any point in criminal proceedings that a defendant shows signs of mental illness, his competence to proceed to stand trial may be questioned (Winick, 2002). The issue may be brought up when he pleads guilty, waives certain constitutional rights, at sentencing hearing or when administering punishment, including capital punishment. Either the defense or prosecution or the court itself may raise the issue, even if
Competency of Offender Evaluating an individuals competence to stand trial can become a daunting task when hideous crimes have been committed. From a forensic psychologist's point-of-view, complete unbiased, non-judgmental, and purely scientific fact must be considered when providing such an evaluation (Greene & Heilbrun, 2011). In the given case, many things are to be taken into consideration before being able to fully judge the extent of the disturbance in the offenders
Thus, a juvenile-specific evaluation is mandated and the evaluation must be performed by someone with juvenile-specific experience (which was not necessarily the case for the initial evaluation of K.G. In Indiana, based upon the facts presented). Virginia law also provides strict guidelines regarding how the evaluation must be performed. After the evaluation, the court makes a decision as to whether the juvenile is competent to stand trial. The juvenile's attorney,
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
The forensic psychology sphere can use the competency of juvenile discussion in a number of ways. First, any competency hearing of a juvenile needs to take into account that the offender's mind is still forming and finalizing and it is not the same thing as assessing a person who is, for example forty years old. That being said, younger offenders do typically know right from wrong and it is possible
Administering Competency Screening Tests on a Minor Balancing between Competency Screening Test (CST) expectations and demands of a given situation is normally an uphill task for CST administrators. A CST tool administers tests on juvenile or mentally challenged individuals. The process is tedious since there are several situations of communication breakdown, and this endangers the processes. For this reason, the administering official should display a proper and a higher degree of