Premium
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL STATUTES AND PROCEDURES
Author(s) -
ROESCH RONALD,
GOLDING STEPHEN L.
Publication year - 1978
Publication title -
criminology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.467
H-Index - 139
eISSN - 1745-9125
pISSN - 0011-1384
DOI - 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1978.tb00102.x
Subject(s) - statute , psychology , interpretation (philosophy) , law , institution , resolution (logic) , statute of limitations , competence (human resources) , political science , social psychology , computer science , artificial intelligence , programming language
Abstract 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 .