4 ms·
There's a gap here that the lawyer (and the expert quoted) is talking about. At some point, you are menally impaired enough that the state should treat you diff
by DanielBMarkham 9y ago
There's a gap here that the lawyer (and the expert quoted) is talking about. At some point, you are menally impaired enough that the state should treat you differently. You are incapable of knowing right from wrong. But just before that point, there are a ton of folks who are severely impaired who might either wish self-harm or take actions that consistently harm themselves. How should we treat those folks?
- emodendroket 9y agoHe was judged competent to stand trial, though. If he wasn't, it seems like the problem is with the way that determination is reached, not in his not taking his lawyer's advice.
- DanielBMarkham 9y agoIs there a difference between "standing trial" and managing your defense? If so, people could fall into the cracks. I think that's what the article is getting at. If not, then either you're able to stand trial or you aren't. If so, you should be able to make whatever decisions you'd like. (I'm a big lover of freedom, so I'm in the second camp. If you're able to stand trial you're able to plea anything you'd like. But I guess there's some question here because of the public's desire not to let anybody be put to death by the courts that might have avoided it with a better defense?) If they decide this lawyer did the right thing then it seems to me like we've created three tiers where there used to be two: competent and incompetent. Now there's competent to stand trial, competent to stand trial yet incompetent to defend themselves, and completely incompetent to stand trial. Things would get a lot more complicated.
- emodendroket 9y agoI don't think any such distinction is recognized legally.