Supreme Court says mentally disabled people do not have the right to serve as their own counsel. At issue was a mentally ill person who was found sane enough to stand trial (i.e., sane enough to understand the charges against him), but who was undeniably mentally ill to a point that would interfere with his ability to serve as his own counsel. Does this ruling allow show trials where a court-appointed attorney presents only those arguments which the State wishes presented and does not allow a defendent to present other arguments? Or is it a humane response to the problem of mentally ill defendents choosing to represent themselves and getting convicted where, in the presence of a fair trial, they would not have been convicted? Discuss.
-- Badtux the Conflicted Penguin
one word folk
ReplyDeletefacist
anywho
i made up a new word in my post today
obamafication chk it you historical 5 cents is always welcome
hope all is well
on
I just read this this morning. Another little gift from Ronnie Raygun's policy of closing down publicly funded mental hospitals.
ReplyDeleteposted April 01, 2007 7:28 pm
Tomgram: Ward, How the Public Library Became Heartbreak Hotel
Interesting. I work professionally with developmentally disabled individuals (think mental retardation, autism, etc.) and specialize in dual-diagnosis (i.e. mentally ill) and forensic issues.
ReplyDeleteI can see the rationale for this decision; however, I generally take a dim view of decisions to limit individuals' rights. But this seems to be a pretty narrow issue; I can't imagine too many defendants being found competent to stand trial who are not also able to be persuaded they should have an attorney. Contrary to episodes of Law & Order, this doesn't happen all that often.