Yesterday, a judge considered the competency of the man charged in the Arizona January shooting rampage that killed six and injured Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords.  Although Jared Loughner has been charged in the case, he cannot go to trial until he has been declared competent to do so.  There was some indication that, once competent to stand trial, he may claim he is not guilty by reason of insanity.

This begs the question:  what is the difference between competency to stand trial and the insanity defense?  There are three basic differences:

The first difference is the timeframe considered.  Determining someone’s competency to stand trial is concerned with their mental state at the time of legal proceedings and trial.  Whether a person can be found not guilty by reason of insanity is determined by looking at the person’s mental state at the time the crime was committed.  So, competency is concerned with today, whereas insanity is concerned with a distinct point in the past.

The second difference is the standard.  Competency is determined by whether the defendant can understand the nature and consequences of the criminal proceedings against him and whether he can assist in his defense. 

The insanity defense varies greatly from state to state.  Federal courts use the M'Naghten test to determine if someone is legally insane.  The M'Naghten test generally asks whether the defendant, because of a defect of reason, either did not understand the nature and quality of his acts or did not know that his acts were wrong.  (Check out this post for more about the insanity defense and the M'Naghten test.)

The third difference is procedural.  Competency is determined by the judge, and must be considered before a trial can take place.  If found incompetent, the defendant is treated in a mental facility and is periodically evaluated to determine whether he has gained competence. 

Insanity is determined by the jury (assuming the defendant has a jury trial).  It is a complete defense to the crime charged.  The idea is that if a person was insane at the time the crime was committed, he or she is excused from responsibility for the crime, and must be found not guilty.  However, being found not guilty by reason of insanity does not mean he goes free.  Generally, the person found legally insane can be locked up in a mental facility until doctors determine he or she is safe to return to society.


For more on the insanity defense, check out this post.
 


Comments

05/08/2012 05:18

The criminal acts are really not good.The law or the attorney of the state should be alert enough to deal with them in advance.Thanks for the blog.

Reply
05/17/2012 19:42

Thanks for your thoughts.

Reply



Leave a Reply

    All-Things-Criminal

    Loading
    Get your FREE E-Book revealing The Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama:

    Author

    Blythe Leszkay is a successful and experienced criminal attorney, criminal law professor, and consultant to writers and filmmakers.  See About Me.  This blog is intended to answer common criminal law questions, dispel misconceptions, and explain misunderstood criminal law concepts.  It is also a place to discuss any crime or law related topics of interest.  Contact me for a free initial consultation on your film or writing project.

    Categories

    All
    Appeals
    Burden Of Proof
    Celebrity Crime
    Common Questions
    Constitution
    Consulting Services
    Courtroom
    Crime In The News
    Crime Novels
    Crime Tv
    Death Penalty
    Defenses
    Evidence
    Extortion
    Hate Crimes
    International Crime
    Juvenile Crime
    Legal Comedy
    Legal Definitions
    Legal Drama
    Manslaughter
    Movies
    Murder
    Search And Seizure
    Serial Killers
    Sex Crimes
    Supreme Court
    Trial
    True Crime
    Writing Tips

      Get Email Updates