Premium
“Dignity was the First to Leave”:* Godinez V. Moran , Colin Ferguson, and the Trial of Mentally Disabled Criminal Defendants
Author(s) -
Perlin Michael L.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
behavioral sciences and the law
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.649
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1099-0798
pISSN - 0735-3936
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1099-0798(199624)14:1<61::aid-bsl226>3.0.co;2-g
Subject(s) - dignity , supreme court , competence (human resources) , law , psychology , criminal trial , death with dignity , spectacle , seclusion , political science , criminology , social psychology , psychiatry
This article considers the Colin Ferguson trial in the context of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Godinez v. Moran , establishing a unitary standard for the determinations of competence to stand trial, competence to plead guilty, and competence to waive counsel. The Ferguson trial was widely seen as a “charade.” I argue that the Ferguson spectacle was the inevitable denouement of the Godinez decision. I then look at the Ferguson trial (through contemporaneous press and television coverage) under the filters of “sanism” and “pretextuality.” I conclude that the “dignity” value—a prerequisite for a constitutionally‐acceptable fair trial—was, as a result of Godinez , lacking in the Ferguson case.