Competent To Stand Trial

During a criminal proceeding, if the defendant appears to be suffering from a mental disorder, the subject of competence is produced. Justice requires that a person who is being tried in court not be absent in either mind or body. Courts have required that all criminal defendants should be competent to stand trial because trying an incompetent defendant in court leads to injustice and policy considerations (Miller 1988). Competency is required in the trial process as it protects the reliability of the court procedure, and guarantees fairness of the legal court process. An offender who may have a mental disorder is examined by medical experts including psychologists and psychiatrists to determine whether he or she is competent to stand trial.
When the defendant is not familiar with the nature of the proceedings he or she is unable to provide assistance to the attorney, and would not know why they are being punished. When a lawyer believes his client is mentally unfit to stand trial, he files a motion for a sanity hearing, and a medical expert is called upon to determine the defendant’s mental competency to stand trial (Reich and Wells 1985). The defendant’s attorney may file a motion because their client is not capable to help them in the defense or they just need to buy some more time to build a strong and steady case as the process of determining competency takes a few weeks (Reich and Wells 1985). On the other hand, the prosecutor may file a motion because of a growing concern of justice not being served due to the defendant’s mental disorder (Reich and Wells 1985). The judge may also file a motion if he or she becomes skeptical of the defendant as a result of inappropriate and irregular behaviour displayed in the courtroom. The purpose behind the competency hearing is to determine whether the defendant is able to stand trial and understand the legal proceedings and consult with
The discipline of psychology and psychiatry are the main groups to examine the defendants. Psychiatric evaluation is divided into 3 different components; firstly, whether the defendant understands the legal issues related to competency, second whether a serious mental disorder is present, and thirdly whether the mental disorder is related to the failure of understanding the legal issues (Miller 1988). Psychologist’s interpretation of the defendant provides other information about the mental status and predictions about future behaviours which supplies the court with facts needed to make suitable decisions (Cooke and Jackson 1971). When the issue of competency is raised, the defendant is interviewed by both psychologist and psychiatrists. It is then decided if the defendant needs to be admitted to a mental institution to be evaluated and interviewed further (Cooke and Jackson 1971). Within a few days, the defendant should be examined by psychiatrists in the mental institution and then psychiatrists testify about the mental condition at the competency hearing orally or in written form (Cooke and Jackson 1971) All those medical experts involved come to a conclusion regarding the competency of the defendant through discussion, and a report is written which is sent to the court (Cooke and Jackson