The word
incompetent is used to describe persons who should not undergo or partake in certain judicial processes, and also for those who lack mental
capacity to make
contracts, handle their
financial and other personal matters such as consenting to medical treatment, etc. and need a
legal guardian to handle their affairs.
Competence to stand trial In
United States law, the right to not be prosecuted while one is incompetent to stand trial has been ruled by the
United States Supreme Court to be guaranteed under the
Due Process Clause. If the court determines that a defendant's mental condition makes him unable to understand the proceedings, or that he is unable to help in his defense, he is found incompetent. The
competency evaluation, as determined in
Dusky v. United States, is whether the accused "has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Being determined incompetent is substantially different from undertaking an
insanity defense; competence regards the defendant's state of mind at the time of the trial, while insanity regards his state of mind at the time of the crime. In New York a hearing on competence to stand trial may be referred to as a "730 exam", after the law that governs the conduct of the exam, New York CPL Sec. 730. In 2006, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered the legal standards for determining competence to stand trial and to waive counsel using the standards of objective unreasonableness under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. A ruling of incompetence may later be reversed. A defendant may recover from a mental illness or disability, and a court may require a defendant to undergo treatment in an effort to render him competent to stand trial. For example, in 1989,
Kenneth L. Curtis of
Stratford, Connecticut was found mentally incompetent to stand trial following the murder of his estranged girlfriend. But years later, as he had attended college and received good grades, this ruling was reversed, and he was ordered to stand trial.
Competence to be executed An inmate on
death row has a right to be evaluated for competency by a
psychologist to determine if punishment can be carried out. This is a result of
Ford v. Wainwright, a case filed by a
Florida inmate on
death row who took his case to the
United States Supreme Court, declaring he was not competent to be
executed. The court ruled in his favor, stating that a forensic professional must make that competency evaluation and, if the inmate is found incompetent, must provide treatment to aid in his gaining competency so the execution can take place.
Competence to enter into a contract Generally, in the United States, a person has the capacity or competence to make the decision to enter into a contract if he can understand and appreciate, to the extent relevant, all of the following: • (a) The rights, duties, and responsibilities created by, or affected by the decision. • (b) The probable consequences for the decisionmaker and, where appropriate, the persons affected by the decision. • (c) The significant risks, benefits, and reasonable alternatives involved in the decision. See, e.g., California Probate Code §812.
Competence and Native Americans Competency was used to determine whether individual
Native Americans could use land allotted to them from the General Allotment Act (GAA), also known as the
Dawes Act. The practice was used after 1906 with the passing of the
Burke Act, also known as the forced patenting act. This Act further amended the GAA to give the Secretary of the Interior the power to issue allottees a patent in fee simple to people classified ‘competent and capable.’ The criteria for this determination is unclear but meant that allottees deemed ‘competent’ by the Secretary of the Interior would have their land taken out of trust status, subject to taxation, and could be sold by the allottee. The Act of June 25, 1910 further amends the GAA to give the Secretary of the Interior the power to sell the land of deceased allottees or issue patent and fee to legal heirs. This decision is based on a determination made by the Secretary of Interior whether the legal heirs are ‘competent’ or ‘incompetent’ to manage their own affairs.
Competence and Immigrants In the United States, legal proceedings in immigration court typically revolves around the removal of a
non-citizen national due to his unlawful presence in the country. In these situations, non-citizens are placed in immigration court hearings where "immigration judges determine whether respondents should be ordered removed from the United States or granted relief or protection from removal... and permitted to remain in the country." Like in other court proceedings, competency can be raised by either parties or the judge if the non-citizen exhibits questionable capacity. In this particular setting, non-citizens are presumed to be competent as determined by
Matter of M-A-M where they have "a rational and factual understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings, can consult with the attorney or representative if there is one, and has a reasonable opportunity to examine and present evidence and cross-examine witnesses." The language in
Matter of M-A-M is similar and holds aspects to
Dusky v. United States, but in the case that there is evidence of incompetency in the non-citizen, there are two instances where it differs. The first being that the court hearing may proceed regardless if the individual lacks "the competency to participate meaningfully in them" as long as there is the appropriate safeguards in place to ensure a fair trial. However, questions of competency can be raised regarding any person who might issue a
testimony (e.g.,
defendant,
witnesses,
experts) and can occur in both
criminal and
civil trials. Groups most likely to trigger a competency issue are children (especially under 10 years old), people with intellectual or developmental disabilities, people with mental illnesses, and people who have abused substances. Before 1975, certain populations (e.g., children) had to prove competency in order to testify, An individual may be deemed incompetent to testify as a witness if his testimony is found to be irrelevant or misleading, or if he cannot be truthful. Historically, witness competency rules in most American states prohibited testimony by slaves and free blacks.
Criteria for Determining Competency Competency to testify is decided by the judge and rarely requires formal evaluation because the threshold is low; judges often use their own discretion without expert input. where witness testimony was called into questions because of their visual impairment). Research with children and observational capacity has found that even though young children often struggle to understand and make meaning from the complex interactions they witness, it does not inhibit their ability to report what they observed.
Ability to remember Research suggests that for witnesses, the two biggest problems that might interfere with their ability to remember the event are time and age.
Ability to remain truthful Witnesses must be able to distinguish between truth and lies and
swear an oath to tell the truth in the courtroom. Most people, children included, understand that they must tell the truth on the witness stand, even though they might have different motivations for so doing. Even young children can distinguish truth and lies, and do not lie any more frequently than adults do.
Competence to make treatment decisions In the United States, an individual must be deemed competent to provide
informed consent for medical treatment. Incompetent individuals cannot provide informed consent, so other decision-makers (such as a
guardian or
health care proxy) may be identified in their stead. Competence to make treatment decisions stems from legal precedent about the right to refuse
psychiatric medication and treatment. In the context of informed consent, most adults are assumed to be competent unless otherwise specified, but should they suffer from severe
mental illnesses or
intellectual disabilities, their competence may be questioned. Still, adults from these more vulnerable populations are not incompetent by default If competence to make treatment decisions is questioned, the individual's understanding, appreciation, and decision-making process may be evaluated.
Understanding A patient should be able to understand any relevant information about their treatment or medical condition which would be disclosed to them during informed consent. However, some defendants want to waive this right and proceed
pro se. In
Faretta v. California, the Supreme Court determined that criminal defendants have a right to waive this Sixth Amendment right and represent themselves in criminal proceedings, even if it is disadvantageous to the criminal defendant to do so. In order to waive their right to counsel, a criminal defendant must be found competent to do so. As such, if a defendant is found competent to stand trial, they are also competent to waive their right to counsel.
Standby counsel If a defendant is found competent to waive their right to counsel and proceeds
pro se, a court may decide to appoint a standby counsel, a ruling by the Supreme Court in
McKaskle v. Wiggins. Pro se defendants are not required to have a standby counsel nor are they granted the right to have a standby counsel. The decision to appoint a standby counsel is in the hands of the court. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." A search is conducted when law enforcement personnel are looking for evidence that might be useful in a case. A seizure is when law enforcement personnel actually take items from a person or scene to further investigate their case. Law enforcement can request to search a person or location if they are given consent by the person in question, •
Dusky v. United States (1960) •
Jackson v. Indiana (1972) •
Drope v. Missouri (1975) •
Faretta v. California (1975) •
Rogers v. Okin (1979) •
Ford v. Wainwright (1986) •
Godinez v. Moran (1993) •
Pate v. Robinson (1966) •
Estelle v. Smith (1981) •
McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984) •
Washington v. Harper (1990) •
Medina v. California (1992) •
Riggins v. Nevada (1992) •
Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996) •
Sell v. United States (2003) •
Indiana v. Edwards (2008) •
Matter of M-A-M (2011) ==United Kingdom==