ASSESSING COMPETENCY

Assessing Competency

Assessing Competency

1.Given the information provided, what else would you want to know about Wilson?

Ans. With regard to the case as described in the case study I would like to know why Edward Wilson started suffering from mental health problems. Why weren't there any signs of it before the age of 17 and what kind of an incident made things worse for him. Why didn't the treatment work in eight years of treatment.

The court offers a useful history of insanity defense. The concept of legal insanity can be traced back to the age-old concept of Mens Rea. The term "mens rea" refers to the mental state of a person at the time of the commission of a crime. Both the ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards and the American Law Institute [ALI] Model Penal Code [MPC] acknowledge the fundamental notion that the commission of a crime involves a certain mental component. The basic tenet holds that an individual who lacks the mental capacity to form the intent to commit a crime, in particular a crime in which intent is an element of the offense, cannot be held legally responsible for the commission of that crime. Such individuals are said to be legally insane.

2.Who would you want to interview for collateral contact about him?

Ans. Firstly, I would like to interview the psychiatrist who was treating Edward Wilson for his mental health problems since the age of 17. He would be the right person to give us the complete details of Edward's ailment and progress report.

3.Does he appear to meet the criteria for competency to stand trial? Why or why not?

Ans. With regard to his sad history he does not meet the criteria for competency to stand trial for his actions. The Durham standard - sometimes called the "product test" - followed, but was heavily criticized for its expansive definition of legal insanity. Durham v. United States, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 228, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954). Under Durham, an individual was legally insane if he "would not have committed the criminal act but for the existence of a mental disease or defect." The Durham model of insanity was much more generous to defendants than the M'Naghten standard. The theory addressed one of the most troubling aspects of the M'Naghten defense: the conviction of a mentally ill defendant, without regard for their special needs and considerations. (Towl, G. 2006 )

Nearly all of the states as well as the federal courts had adopted the M'Naghten test for insanity. Only the District of Columbia in Durham, and perhaps one or two other states, used the "product" test for insanity.

4.What questions would you ask him in order to assess his competency to stand trial?

Ans. If he meets the competency trial criteria the Nevada Supreme Court disagreed with those state supreme courts that have ruled that the insanity defense is not a federal fundamental right under the Due Process Clause. State v. Herrera, 895 ...