The previous two parts of this discussion on competency standards have largely looked at language models required for talking about competency and at a working example of where this language applies. Now, we will zoom out and look at the ways that competency can augment stigma when applied in mental health proceedings.
Historically, stigma surrounding competency dates back to the 19th century. There were court considerations considered “mute of malice” where someone would be forced into a plea, even when they did not commit a crime, and “mute by visitation of God” when someone was perceived as “lunatic.” These were then institutionalized under the Due Process Clause by the Supreme Court when the Court ruled it unconstitutional to try someone suffering from insanity.
Precedent establishing prongs of competency tests can be found in Godinez v. Moran (1993), Indiana v. Edwards (2008) and more historically Dusky v. United States (1960). Thankfully, these tests provide standards that courts must go through in order to determine someone incompetent. As they are written by the Court, they do underscore the importance of autonomy and respect. At times, this can still get lost in translation as people outside the court are not necessarily focussing on these precedents.
Insanity is an outdated and broad term that has since been replaced with categorizations that are more tailored to reflect an individual’s conditions. Though, the use of “insanity” in this context applies to the discussion on competency. When someone was determined to be insane, earlier in our country’s history they would be generally seen as incompetent. Just as insanity has been modernized to labels that accurately portray someone’s condition in a respectful nature, we must update the way we talk about competency in order to respect an individual’s abilities. As aforementioned, being broadly seen as incompetent dehumanizes people and minimizes their autonomy.
As we are a constitutional America, people generally react very sharply to determinations that limit one’s autonomy. But, due to societal stigma and discomfort with persons experiencing mood disorders or mental health symptoms, it is often overlooked when autonomy is stripped from these people. Thus, we must underscore the importance of certain language, as we have been doing, through this discussion, to rework the system and ways of thinking to promote person centered care for people experiencing mental health symptoms.
When someone is determined incompetent to do something, which could be to stand trial, then the state is often the actor that takes over by virtue of paternalism. When the state disregards personhood, we are in a state of control. To reject this line of thinking, all players must adopt a person centered approach. To prevent this entirely, we must also strictly adhere to the Court’s tests to preserve Due Process and individual liberties. In an ideal world, this is how it works, but again, due to historically engrained stigma, this is not the case. Thus, we continue to learn through discussions such as this one.
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.