Whose Competence?

To make any system of criminal justice work, it is necessary to presume that a person accused of an offense is innocent until proven guilty. We Americans are familiar with our right to be presumed innocent and are justly proud of it. But to make our system work, it is now also necessary that we presume that the defendant is psychiatrically fit to stand trial until proven otherwise. Although this assumption is just as important as the assumption about guilt or innocence, the public is unfamiliar with it and the media pay scant attention to it. Moreover, if our interest in the mental competence of the defendant is sincere, because we want to protect him from being tried unfairly, then we ought to be equally concerned, and for the same reason, about the competence of all of the dramatis personae in this morality play. Consider the following two scenarios.

Scenario 1: The defendant is a famous figure on trial for lying to Congress under oath and other sensational charges. The judge and the attorneys are seasoned courtroom performers. To protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial, prospective jurors are asked whether they or any members of their families have been parties to or witnesses in any courtroom proceedings. One prospective juror, subsequently selected to serve, answers no. She is also asked whether she has heard of any of nearly two hundred people, among them the current President and his predecessor, and again she answers in the negative. After the trial we learn that one of her brothers had been convicted and served time for armed robbery. When questioned, she explains: “It left my mind because I didn’t want to think about it . . . I forgot about it after I shed tears.” She also forgot that two of her other brothers had also “been arrested at various times.” Question: Was this person competent? Was the pre-trial interrogation intended to test her competence, and, if so, was her performance adjudged adequate to establish her fitness to serve as a juror?

TS

About the Author

Thomas S. Szasz

Featured Tags

To make any system of criminal justice work, it is necessary to presume that a person accused of an offense is innocent until proven guilty. We Americans are familiar with our right to be presumed innocent and are justly proud of it. But to make our system work, it is now also necessary that we presume that the defendant is psychiatrically fit to stand trial until proven otherwise. Although this assumption is just as important as the assumption about guilt or innocence, the public is unfamiliar with it and the media pay scant attention to it. Moreover, if our interest in the mental competence of the defendant is sincere, because we want to protect him from being tried unfairly, then we ought to be equally concerned, and for the same reason, about the competence of all of the dramatis personae in this morality play. Consider the following two scenarios.

Scenario 1: The defendant is a famous figure on trial for lying to Congress under oath and other sensational charges. The judge and the attorneys are seasoned courtroom performers. To protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial, prospective jurors are asked whether they or any members of their families have been parties to or witnesses in any courtroom proceedings. One prospective juror, subsequently selected to serve, answers no. She is also asked whether she has heard of any of nearly two hundred people, among them the current President and his predecessor, and again she answers in the negative. After the trial we learn that one of her brothers had been convicted and served time for armed robbery. When questioned, she explains: “It left my mind because I didn’t want to think about it . . . I forgot about it after I shed tears.” She also forgot that two of her other brothers had also “been arrested at various times.” Question: Was this person competent? Was the pre-trial interrogation intended to test her competence, and, if so, was her performance adjudged adequate to establish her fitness to serve as a juror?