There is a critical difference between a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and a finding that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. The latter is a matter of due process; it is not a determination of acquittal of the underlying crime by reason of insanity. The latter focuses on present facts; the former on circumstances at the time of the crime. I think the column conflates the two. Our system of justice has always had to balance the need for a “just” outcome with the need for a “fair” or due process. In my first week of law school I learned that the quality of the outcome you reach is inseparable from the process used to reach it. So while there may be no doubt that the defendant committed the crime, there remains the question of how to resolve the outcome, for not only the victims, but society as well as the defendant.
Thought provoking.
There is a critical difference between a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and a finding that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. The latter is a matter of due process; it is not a determination of acquittal of the underlying crime by reason of insanity. The latter focuses on present facts; the former on circumstances at the time of the crime. I think the column conflates the two. Our system of justice has always had to balance the need for a “just” outcome with the need for a “fair” or due process. In my first week of law school I learned that the quality of the outcome you reach is inseparable from the process used to reach it. So while there may be no doubt that the defendant committed the crime, there remains the question of how to resolve the outcome, for not only the victims, but society as well as the defendant.
Now one can see why sometimes Liberals ( Democrats) are labeled as soft on crime. Steve Kaye
As usual you hit the nail on the head. Thanks
Excellent analysis, Greg, as always!
I appreciate your raising this issue as it reflects just how broken our "justice" system is today. Thank you.