Insanity

Three Contexts in Which Mental Competency Becomes Legally Relevant

A defendant's mental competency may become an issue at three distinct stages of a criminal proceeding.

Competency to Stand Trial. Before trial, a court may be called upon to determine whether a defendant is competent to proceed. The governing test is whether the defendant can understand the nature of the proceedings against him and assist counsel in mounting a defense. A defendant who cannot satisfy this standard may not be tried.

The Insanity Defense. At trial, a defendant may contend that even if they committed the charged act, they should not be held criminally responsible by reason of insanity. The applicable tests vary by jurisdiction; most states have adopted some version of the M'Naghten standard, which will be examined in United States v. Freeman, considered next.

Competency for Execution. After conviction and sentencing, a separate question arises: whether the state may execute a defendant who is insane. In Ford v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court held that executing an insane person violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. An open question remains, however: whether a state may forcibly medicate a condemned prisoner to restore competency sufficient for execution.