Now that we have established how to talk about competency, we will look at a tailored example where competency comes up: competency to stand trial.
In the legal setting, commonly the question is related to someone’s competency to stand trial. This question may sound as though it is referencing someone’s ability to appear in court, physically. The real implications are deep and widely debated. The ability to stand trial really asks if someone can understand the proceedings that they are in and can help their lawyer in their own defence.
This question about competency to stand trial will be the basis of this discussion. Typically this is heard in the criminal court setting, as someone accused of a crime is working with their attorney in order to build their case. Again, this discussion will primarily look at the criminal setting. Though, this technically could apply across all trial types. If someone is not competent to understand legal proceedings, then they are not able to stand court, no matter the court setting.
When competency questions arise, the criminal process can be delayed. This is troubling because the conditions of confinement while someone is in holding for their criminal trial can be eliciting their mood disorder or mental health condition that is limiting their competency to stand trial. When someone is in a competency hearing, the question revolves around their level of functioning present in the moment and how it relates to the particular task at hand they are being asked to do.
Within the competency to stand trial, there are subcategories of competency. For example, there is the competency to proceed, in reference to the ability to go through proceedings of trial and sentencing. Similarly, there is decisional competency which includes the ability to plead guilty, waive counsel, waive insanity defense and waive rights associated with interrogation.
This is an incredibly valuable aspect of the system to focus on, specifically when it comes to mental health related competency questions. People attribute an incredible amount of value to personal autonomy, when this is taken away, people panic. Further, wherever that autonomy is delegated gives someone else tremendous power in determining the liberty for someone else. This gives rise to the potential for bad actors to infiltrate decision making and do things that may not actually be in someone else’s best interest.
The next segment will look at how the parens patriae models of commitment relates to competency standards and can augment the stigma that persons experiencing mental health symptoms face.
Works Cited
Pleasants, Gregory. “Conflation of Mental Health versus Legal Standards.” LAW 403: Mental Health Law, Jan. 23, 2024, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Lecture.
Slobogin, Christopher, et al. Law and the Mental Health System: Civil and Criminal Aspects. West Academic Publishing, 2020.