Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Court limits mentally ill defendants
abcnews.go.com — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that criminal defendants with a history of mental illness do not always have the right to represent themselves, even though they have been judged competent to stand trial.
ibeckett- 402 diggs
- digg it
- kathcom, on 06/19/2008, -4/+13Okay, I dugg it. But this is an Associated Press article. Look at the disclaimer at the end. No fair use practices for AP. They should rot.
- ibeckett, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2good point, oops
- stizz, on 06/20/2008, -1/+6The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that criminal defendants with a history of mental illness do not always have the right to represent themselves, even though they have been judged competent to stand trial.
The justices, by a 7-2 vote, say states can give trial judges discretion to prevent someone from acting as his own lawyer if they are concerned that the trial could turn into a farce.
The decision comes in the case of an Indiana man who was convicted of attempted murder and other charges in 2005 for a shooting six years earlier at an Indianapolis department store.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material was just published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ***** YOU AP- mihai11, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5You have just became a criminal in the eyes of the AP executives.
There should be laws protecting the bloggers from such greedy corporations like AP. To me, it looks like AP is trying to make any news item they produce like a patent: "we said it first and nobody else has the right to say it again."
- mihai11, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5You have just became a criminal in the eyes of the AP executives.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1They can tell you anything they want, that doesn't change the law regarding fair use.
- SMGBreakingNews, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0I believe abc.com would pay the fee to the AP to publish the article. Once it's on abcnews.go.com with a share button, isn't it fair game? I'm not saying I love AP, but am I wrong?
- SheKnowsLLC, on 06/19/2008, -3/+2I dugg it also - but i hate the AP :(
- plimpton777, on 06/19/2008, -6/+5AP: ***** Pussies.
- bionictrout, on 06/20/2008, -3/+1That makes no sense, taken literally.
- quez, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1It's called a 'vaganus'. Look it up!
- consonance, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1Asshats Pernicious
- bionictrout, on 06/20/2008, -3/+1That makes no sense, taken literally.
- jcorn1, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2I dugg it for relevance but do have to ask: would a defendant get a fair trial if he or she was out of touch with any degree of reality, thought he or she was on another planet, couldn't respond to questions? Wouldn't that person be safer or get a better defense from a sympathetic representative? I ask only because I knew someone who represented himself, was out of touch with the world and ended up in jail, suffering to this day. He didn't even end up in a mental hospital.
- Ricky81682, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Once you are that far gone, you aren't fit to stand trial. This is for people who are fit to stand trial (i.e. are able to help their attorney in their own defense) but aren't really fit to BE their own attorney. This makes sense with precedent that allows the trial court to stop people from voluntarily chosing joint representation.
- industryfinest, on 06/20/2008, -5/+1yep, I hate the AP, but for my friends only will i DIGG!!!!
- Sheri123, on 06/20/2008, -6/+0People may dislike the AP, but the ruling was a good one. Thank you.
- deedum1, on 06/20/2008, -2/+5I Dugg this . . . I wrote an article about medication and the mentally ill . . . based on experience with our children whom we adopted out of foster care.
- ggathergood, on 06/20/2008, -6/+0I dugg this but only because of shouts. It doesnt really bother me. I only tend to digg things I like.
- ibeckett, on 06/20/2008, -3/+1that's not cool
- jasoninoakland, on 06/20/2008, -6/+27Good news, although I don't think Bush was planning on representing himself in his own impeachment proceedings anyway.
- jrspartan53, on 06/20/2008, -5/+3bah dun chhhhh
- lzcracker, on 06/20/2008, -4/+3Deer peepoll of te United Stats of America, I hav ben impeachtreed, say by to my aganda.
~George W Bush. - slearwig, on 06/20/2008, -2/+3Why should Bush represent himself?
He's got Roberts and Alito, and Scalia and Thomas to do it for him.- csw1342, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Don't forget Blackwater. .
- nedy78, on 06/20/2008, -2/+4If you were mentally ill it seems like in certain instances the impaired person might perceive that they're competent to represent themselves, and be taken advantage of in the court room. So this judgment may seem heartless in context, might in place to protect them from themselves.
- Ricky81682, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1The classic example is Ted Kaczynski, who was clearly fit to stand trial but refused to allow his attorneys to argue mental defect (otherwise, his manifesto would look only like the rantings of a nut). There is a serious concern about a potential for bias if the court doesn't allow someone to be able to argue something they and they alone believe in. Who's to say who really is crazy anyway?
- nedy78, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3I realize the line is easily skewed and often misunderstood, but for the most part the United States judicates fairly.Yes there are blunders just like any human process. They do have professionals who dedicate their time and opinion fairly. Furthermore they operate within the perimeters of the legal and medical scope of the law. So who decides who's crazy, the answer is obviously subjective, but a reasonable answer and fair assertion can be deducted.
- Ricky81682, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Oh, I agree, the system is usually fine. However, the rules are intended to made for the hard cases, not the easy ones.
"Everyone knows he's guilty, who cares if the police didn't get a legitimate warrant" isn't the reasoning the law should be using.
Most of our 6th Amendment rights actually come from English common law, particularly the case of Sir Walter Raleigh. The amount of what-would-be due process violations the courts used to get that treason conviction through led to a lot of our Constitutional protections (right to counsel, sans Wainwright; right to cross-examine witnesses, right to confront accusers). Perhaps it's just the originalist in me, but I look at it from the most extreme case and go from there.
- Ricky81682, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1The classic example is Ted Kaczynski, who was clearly fit to stand trial but refused to allow his attorneys to argue mental defect (otherwise, his manifesto would look only like the rantings of a nut). There is a serious concern about a potential for bias if the court doesn't allow someone to be able to argue something they and they alone believe in. Who's to say who really is crazy anyway?
- pauls88, on 06/20/2008, -3/+2that's crazy
- known, on 06/20/2008, -3/+2Isn't this Oxymoron?
- sockpuppets, on 06/20/2008, -4/+6CATFISH SAMMICHES!!
AMIRITE?
ACQUIT ME! - helliottlaw, on 06/20/2008, -3/+2I smell a sitcom
- robthom, on 06/20/2008, -2/+8Mentally ill according to who?!
Psychiatrists and school teachers are some of the most nutball people I've ever encountered!
And in the case of psychiatrists almost without exception.- serendipitously, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Add to that Judges and Lawyers.
I agree that 'mental illness' has often been used as a tool by social scientists against their own people for any kind of unorthodox or abherrent behaviour. We forget history so quickly.
The political dissenters, the persecuted for whatever reason being shut down from speaking is just one step away from having a private trial. And dictators are notorious for calling a person nuts, treating them involuntarily, often killing them or experimenting on them. It is also abhorrent to punish people more because they are 'mentally disordered'. "personality disordered" is the most contested label I can think of yet it has been used to justify detention beyond any jail sentence imposed on them, when the 'competent' offender is released into the community.- robthom, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Great points, very much agreed.
- robthom, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Great points, very much agreed.
- serendipitously, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Add to that Judges and Lawyers.
- nephilimx, on 06/20/2008, -2/+6"The decision comes in the case of an Indiana man who was convicted of attempted murder and other charges in 2005 for a shooting six years earlier at an Indianapolis department store."
Well im sick of morons getting short sentences because they claim depression, drugs or there daddy touching them. I think its about time we got tough with them. - DogBotherer, on 06/20/2008, -3/+5What a load of legalistic nonsense. Either you're sufficiently mental fit to defend yourself or you're not fit to stand trial. It doesn't mean the streets can't be kept safe, it's more about society's obsession with blame and vengeance...
- Frostek, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1There are levels of competency, surely? Like most things, it's not a black and white issue.
- DogBotherer, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Huh? How can you stand trial (fairly) if you're not mentally sound enough to represent your own interests? Seems like an either or to me.
By all means place dangerously mentally ill people in secure settings unless and until they are safe, but it's meaningless to convict them of a crime just so you can say they're "bad" rather than "mad" when they're clearly the latter. In the UK we went through this charade with the Yorkshire ripper who was convicted and labelled "evil" then swiftly transferred into a secure hospital as the prison system couldn't cope with him and he needed treatment.
- DogBotherer, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Huh? How can you stand trial (fairly) if you're not mentally sound enough to represent your own interests? Seems like an either or to me.
- Frostek, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1There are levels of competency, surely? Like most things, it's not a black and white issue.
- lendrick, on 06/20/2008, -1/+5So my understanding of this is that Jack Thompson is no longer allowed to represent himself in court?
- E9437, on 06/20/2008, -8/+3UNRELATED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt2i0ts-uck
lol i watched it at least 6 times! - GangsterCompute, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3'Mentally ill' or 'insane' are political categories and here we can see them being deployed as such. I guess you can decide whether you think that's 'fair' or not...unless the state decides that you're not capable of representing your own judgments, in which case you must have someone else make that decision for you in your best interest.
- nedy78, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1Wouldn't this open the door to, ok I'll represent myself. / 'O.k go ahead and do it. Oops, you ***** up representing yourself.'/ Oh wait I wasn't really mentally competent, re-trial, but I think I'm better this time, I'll go ahead and try to represent myself again. Point being, it could lead to a legal quagmire that in theory could end up being a huge waste of time.
- mdfrancois, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1The Justices are allowed to Judge, even if some aren't fit to interpret the Constitution. This seems an extension of that reality.
- DroppedGT, on 06/20/2008, -3/+1Judge says hes tired of talking to stupid people. He rather talk to stupid greedy people.
- TriTech, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1I think the minority opinion is the right one. If you are competent to stand trial you should have the right to make the same mistakes as anyone else and take your chances.
- DrPh0bius, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0This doesnt have anything to do with justice for the defendant... it is all about avoiding an appeal based on questioning the competency of the defendant to defend him or herself.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is