Marginally competent can't be own counsel

[The Observer]

A lot of Soviet dissidents had to endure challenges to their mental competency due to the fact that the regime found it a lot easier to declare them mentally ill which opened the door to having the embarrassing dissedent muzzled by being institutionalized. If that didn't work, they could always challenge the dissident's complaint based on the fact that he or she had a "history" of "mental illness".

I don't think it will take long for TPs to start looking at rulings like this and suddenly start drawing wild-assed comparisons to the KGB.

[Doktor Avalanche]

A lot of Soviet dissidents had to endure challenges to their mental competency due to the fact that the regime found it a lot easier to declare them mentally ill which opened the door to having the embarrassing dissedent muzzled by being institutionalized. If that didn't work, they could always challenge the dissident's complaint based on the fact that he or she had a "history" of "mental illness".

I don't think it will take long for TPs to start looking at rulings like this and suddenly start drawing wild-assed comparisons to the KGB.

With Van Pelt leading the charge.

[Imalawman]

A lot of Soviet dissidents had to endure challenges to their mental competency due to the fact that the regime found it a lot easier to declare them mentally ill which opened the door to having the embarrassing dissedent muzzled by being institutionalized. If that didn't work, they could always challenge the dissident's complaint based on the fact that he or she had a "history" of "mental illness".

I don't think it will take long for TPs to start looking at rulings like this and suddenly start drawing wild-assed comparisons to the KGB.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, I think that if you're declared competent to stand trial, you should be competent to defend yourself and have that right. If you're not competent to defend yourself maybe the decision to have them stand trial needs reexamining. I don't know, something doesn't seem right about this to me.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

A lot of Soviet dissidents had to endure challenges to their mental competency due to the fact that the regime found it a lot easier to declare them mentally ill which opened the door to having the embarrassing dissedent muzzled by being institutionalized. If that didn't work, they could always challenge the dissident's complaint based on the fact that he or she had a "history" of "mental illness".

I don't think it will take long for TPs to start looking at rulings like this and suddenly start drawing wild-assed comparisons to the KGB.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, I think that if you're declared competent to stand trial, you should be competent to defend yourself and have that right. If you're not competent to defend yourself maybe the decision to have them stand trial needs reexamining. I don't know, something doesn't seem right about this to me.

An observation/question from a layman: Does being ruled competent to stand trial imply that you would, 1. understand the charges against you, and 2. be competent enough to offer information to your counsel as a part of your defense? If these are both true then why couldn't one serve as his own counsel?

Thanks.

[The Observer]

I'm not sure how I feel about this, I think that if you're declared competent to stand trial, you should be competent to defend yourself and have that right. If you're not competent to defend yourself maybe the decision to have them stand trial needs reexamining. I don't know, something doesn't seem right about this to me.

Does it logically follow that if you are competent to stand trial, that you are competent to defend yourself? As a layman, even though I am competent to stand trial, I sure wouldn't want to take the position that I am competent to defend myself in a court of law - even though I have that right.

And in the above situation regarding the mentally ill, I am not sure what the definition of "competence" means in the mind of the court. The situation here appears to mean that the defendant was physically able to appear in court, but apparently still suffering from his/her mental illness.

[notorial dissent]

I guess the problem I have is that if they are NOT competent to defend themselves, then HOW can they be competent to stand trial? I find, and have always found this kind of double standard disturbing. On the positive side, with this ruling someone in that state is “hopefully” less likely to be railroaded into a sentence. I still find it disturbing though.