Legal and Judicial Interpretation of Competency to Stand Trial Statutes and Procedures

Bibliographic Data

ID9681048
AuthorsRonald Roesch (0000-0002-3122-9620, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, corresponding author), Stephen L Golding (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)
Year1978
Volume16
Issue3
Pages420-429
Publication date1978-11-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueCriminology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0011-1384 • E-ISSN: 1745-9125
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1745-9125.1978.tb00102.x
OpenAlexW2169326669
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited4

This study provides an analysis of the views of the legal community with respect to competency to stand trial statutes and procedures. Responses from North Carolina judges and defense attorneys reveal significant areas of disagreement or misunderstanding. While many judges believed that defense attorneys misunderstood or misused the competency procedures, the judges uniformly granted the motions. Defense attorneys indicated reasons for requesting competency evaluations that were frequently unrelated to concerns about competency. Hearings to determine competency were often not even held, and if a defendant was found to be incompetent. most judges believed that involuntary commitment to a mental institution should be automatic regardless of perceived dangerousness. The authors argue that these issues demand further attention and resolution to allow the competency laws to accomplish their intended goal without jeopardizing defendants’ rights

Competence (human resources · Institution · Interpretation (philosophy · Political science · Resolution (logic · Statute · Statute of limitations · Computer Science · Criminal Law and Evidence · Law · Legal Education and Practice Innovations · Legal Systems and Judicial Processes · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub