Essay --

When an individual is apprehend and charged with a crime, they must understand what they must be fully aware and be able to perform crucial personal and legal function. This is known to be competent. There are various types of legal competences that must be known such as the competency to confess, competency to waive Miranda rights, competency to make treatment decision and etc. In essences, competence is referring to being cognitively aware of the decision that a one is making such as confessing to a crime while understanding the consequences that will occur should they continue to confess. However, criminals that have a mental illness or defect might not appreciate the nature of their crime and might have difficulty understanding the stages of the trial (Costanzo, & Krauss 2012). These criminals would have to have a competency to stand trial evaluation established in order to continue trail. Competency to stand trial (CTS) was first established in the 1960 case Dusky v United Stat es. In this case, the Supreme Court set the benchmark in CTS stating a defendant is not competent to stand trial if due to mental illness and/or defect; he lacks the cognitive capacity to assist counsel and aid in his own defense with a sensible degree of rational understanding or if the defendant does not have a rational understanding of the proceedings charged against him. Since Dusky v United States created the bench mark for CTS, there have been many other cases and Supreme Court decisions that have modified and refined CST. The three main cases that demonstrate this modification to CST are; Washington v Harper (1990), Riggins v Nevada (1992) and Sell v United states (2003). Each of these cases demonstrated the government attempting to restore the... ...e medication to Sells. The medical hearing officer claimed that Sells delusional thinking could lead him into becoming dangerous. Sell’s challenges being medicated in court. The question that the Supreme Court must answer is if the U. S Constitution allows the federal government to administer antipsychotic medication to a defendant that is mentally ill but not dangerous in order for him to become CTS for a severe but nonviolent crime. The Supreme Court decided that the Constitution allows the government to forcibly administer antipsychotic drugs to a mentally ill defendant. However, the treatment must be medically suitable for the individual and will not cause side effects that won’t distribute the defendant during his trail. Another important factor that the government pointed out was if there was trail was significantly important to the governments’ interest. Essay -- When an individual is apprehend and charged with a crime, they must understand what they must be fully aware and be able to perform crucial personal and legal function. This is known to be competent. There are various types of legal competences that must be known such as the competency to confess, competency to waive Miranda rights, competency to make treatment decision and etc. In essences, competence is referring to being cognitively aware of the decision that a one is making such as confessing to a crime while understanding the consequences that will occur should they continue to confess. However, criminals that have a mental illness or defect might not appreciate the nature of their crime and might have difficulty understanding the stages of the trial (Costanzo, & Krauss 2012). These criminals would have to have a competency to stand trial evaluation established in order to continue trail. Competency to stand trial (CTS) was first established in the 1960 case Dusky v United Stat es. In this case, the Supreme Court set the benchmark in CTS stating a defendant is not competent to stand trial if due to mental illness and/or defect; he lacks the cognitive capacity to assist counsel and aid in his own defense with a sensible degree of rational understanding or if the defendant does not have a rational understanding of the proceedings charged against him. Since Dusky v United States created the bench mark for CTS, there have been many other cases and Supreme Court decisions that have modified and refined CST. The three main cases that demonstrate this modification to CST are; Washington v Harper (1990), Riggins v Nevada (1992) and Sell v United states (2003). Each of these cases demonstrated the government attempting to restore the... ...e medication to Sells. The medical hearing officer claimed that Sells delusional thinking could lead him into becoming dangerous. Sell’s challenges being medicated in court. The question that the Supreme Court must answer is if the U. S Constitution allows the federal government to administer antipsychotic medication to a defendant that is mentally ill but not dangerous in order for him to become CTS for a severe but nonviolent crime. The Supreme Court decided that the Constitution allows the government to forcibly administer antipsychotic drugs to a mentally ill defendant. However, the treatment must be medically suitable for the individual and will not cause side effects that won’t distribute the defendant during his trail. Another important factor that the government pointed out was if there was trail was significantly important to the governments’ interest.