Abstract
Justice is often a yearned outcome for every criminal court proceeding. The judges are often faced with a hard task of making fair, accurate, and timely verdicts involving criminal cases whose defendants are taking a plea of not guilty for reason of insanity. Insanity is regarded as individuals' ability to be held accountable for the crimes they have been charged. On the other hand, the defendant's competence is regarded to be the ability of this individual to understand and even comprehend the charges leveled against him in the criminal court. By assessing the defendants' psychiatric issues, the psychiatrists are held responsible for making a conclusive diagnosis of cognitive and behavioral disorders. Medical insanity and legal insanity are different. Legal insanity is the state of mind during an actual crime. Medical insanity is anybody who suffers from problems of mental disorders. The research aims at reviewing the current standards in the legal system based on the competence and madness of the defendants facing trial in a court of law.
Keywords : Justice, Criminal Court, Criminal Cases, Medical Insanity, Legal Insanity
Insanity in the Legal System
Introduction
In the realm of criminal justice, to ensure that a fair trial is delivered, the competence and the insanity of the defendants are usually considered. Justice is often a yearned outcome for every criminal court proceeding. The judges are often faced with a hard task of making fair, accurate, and timely verdicts involving criminal cases whose defendants are taking a plea of not guilty for reason of insanity. Competence is centered on a defendant's ability to understand the magnitude and nature of the charges against them. On the other hand, insanity is focused on the defendant's ability to stand accountable for the crimes that they are being charged for in a court of law. “If a defendant pleads NGRI, the law asks, what was the defendant's state of mind when the offense was committed? Incompetency considerations, the question becomes, what is the defendant's state of mind at present, or at the time of the pretrial proceedings or trial?" ( Bartol & Bartol, 2019 ). Disparities may occur for the defendant's insanity from when they committed the crime to the time they face trial in court. The madness taken into consideration is the one at the time of committing the crime. The standards for both are, therefore, multidimensional and explicit. The research aims at reviewing the current rules in the legal system based on the competence and insanity of the defendants facing trial in a court of law.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the current legal system, phrases such as not guilty for insanity and not competent to stand trial have been used for decades now. Defendants' competency entails understanding and comprehending the magnitude and the criminal nature of one's actions and the charges laid before them in a criminal court of law ( Math, Kumar & Moirangthem, 2015 ). The insanity of the defendants in the ability to hold the defendants responsible for the crimes they have committed.
Determination of Competence
In criminal law, the psychiatrists are mandated to determine the levels of competency of the defendants. Psychiatrists are often consultants to the criminal law courts in matters to do with competence and insanity. For the prosecution to take effect, the defendant must have the ability to consult with his or her lawyer in a rational manner. The Supreme Court standards of 1960 focus on various factors to determine a defendant ( Appelbaum, 2012 ). The defendant needs to understand that he is in a criminal court and that he or she is being charged for a particular crime, as stated. Defendants should also know that a judge is on the bench, and the prosecutor is working around the clock to convict him of a crime. The accused also needs to understand that they have a lawyer who they are working with to present a solid defense before the jury.
Raising the Issue of Competence
The person to raise the Issue of competence is the judge on trial basing on the evidence produced by the defendant's team. Therefore, it is upon the defendant's side to prove that it will sway the judge's decision.
Legal Insanity Versus Medical Insanity
Insanity can be perceived from a medical or legal perspective. “Every person who is mentally ill is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility” ( Math, Kumar, & Moirangthem, 2015 ). A clear cut is to be made in a criminal trial proceeding between the medical insanity and the legal insanity. A law court is centered on the legal aspects of insanity. All the people that are suffering from mental illnesses it is said to be medical insanity. The people who suffer from such mental illnesses but have also lost their ability to reason straight are believed to be legal insanity. Legal insanity is simply the mental state that a defendant had when they committed the crime they are charged against.
Competence to Waive Rights
In this case, waiving individual rights is when a defendant is perceived as incompetent to actively participate in a criminal trial for charges leveled against him or her ( Korngold et al., 2015 ). In a trial, competency must be taken into serious consideration in making decisions that aid in finding resolutions for the charges in a sound, fair, accurate, and just manner.
Competency of The Defendant to Plead Guilty
More than 90% of all criminal cases in the US end up being pleaded guilty. The decision to take a plea of guilty waiver most of the rights that a defendant should have in a criminal court of law ( Math, Kumar & Moirangthem, 2015 ). If the defendant's competence to stand before trial and the capability to plead guilty are not tallying. The jury is forced to adopt a new standard that the defendant would not plead guilty if their mental state were impaired.
Burden of Proof
Under the law that governs the US, it is assumed that everyone in the nation is having sufficient levels of reason and that they are all sane. The court of law cannot state otherwise unless the claim is proven ( Math, Kumar & Moirangthem, 2015 ). The aspects of the burden of truth are on the commission of a crime and the insanity defense.
Standards for Hospitalization of Insane Defenders
Based on Jackson's case versus Indiana, of the year 1972, the supreme made orders for incompetent deaf that was mentally challenged, and the trial waited until he had recovered. The defendant had less ability to fully participate in the trial proceedings of the court ( Parker, 2011 ). Therefore, a challenge was posed for this move since some of the hospitalized defendants stayed in the hospital for a longer time.
Involuntary Medication
The court of appeals in the US second district tackled the Issue of involuntary medication for the trial between Charters and the US. It was stated that the psychotropic drugs required a decision that was separate from applying the standards that are necessary for the case ( Bartol, C & Bartol, A. 2019 ). According to the US's supreme court, it was argued that medications to prison inmates were constitutional. The safety of others is essential concerning this involuntary medication.
Conclusion
Psychiatrists are the professionals in the medical field who are mandated with the task of advising courts accordingly. The defendants should only be allowed to take a plea of guilty only when they are in their right state of mind. Being in the right state of mind is essential for the accused to choose from various options. The standard of proof highly emphasizes competence. If the defendant forgoes the insanity defense, therefore, the judge will not impose. Rules that are considered in the treatment of incompetence of the defendants are of great concern. Insanity and competence are two unique tools used by the criminal courts of law to ensure that justice is for all and served, especially for the defendants. The legal system today rarely adopts the not guilty for reason of insanity.
References
Appelbaum, P. S. (2012). Law & psychiatry: treatment of incompetent, dangerous criminal defendants: parsing the law. Psychiatric Services , 63 (7), 630-632. Retrieved from: https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.201200630
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2019). Introduction to forensic psychology. (5th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN-13: 978-1-5063-8724-6. Retrieved from: http://93.174.95.29/main/EB1395784DFA528D85749FA6FA2F04DC
Korngold, C., Ochoa, K., Inlender, T., McNiel, D., & Binder, R. (2015). Mental health and immigrant detainees in the United States: Competency and self-representation. The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law , 43 (3), 277. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6d97/75177e01914d2b710bb0e39fb4b4d02d4ab0.pdf
Math, S. B., Kumar, C. N., & Moirangthem, S. (2015). The insanity defense: Past, present, and future. Indian journal of psychological medicine , 37 (4), 381. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676201/
Parker, G. F. (2011). A historical review of the legal and personal background to Jackson v. Indiana. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online , 39 (1), 86-92. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6bd2/cad14a1abdf44c564caf9a04185b5ec4bacd.pdf
