NCJ Number
84375
Journal
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology Volume: 26 Issue: 1 Dated: (1982) Pages: 43-48
Date Published
1982
Length
6 pages
Annotation
A forensic psychiatrist in Canada proposes to abolish the competency to stand trial standard in criminal law on both theoretical and practical grounds.
Abstract
The criminal code of Canada, like many other codes, does not define competency to stand trial in psychiatric terms but equates it to the absence of insanity. This ambiguity had led psychiatrists and courts to develop criteria and assessment instruments, but the concept of competency still presents great potential for abuse. Ensuring that a trial is accurate and fair has been a major reason advanced for the competency standard. However, the insanity defense has been used by defense lawyers to avoid a capital or life imprisonment penalty and by the courts to accomplish long term detention that would be impossible under regular criminal law. Safeguarding the decorum of the court and the dignity of its proceedings has been cited as another justification. This is simply a hypocritical facade, and some jurisdictions have handled behavior problems by making an exception to the trial in absentia rule and ordering the accused from the courtroom. Humanitarian reasons for the competency concept address themselves to matters of punishment more than the trial itself. Moreover, it is not humane to deprive the accused of the right to trial or to send him or her indefinitely to a mental hospital. From the paractical viewpoint, many cases are resolved by plea bargaining and competency is an issue in only a few going to trial. It would be preferable to allow those cases involving competency to go to trial and deal with the defendant's mental condition after its conclusion. The paper includes 20 footnotes.