2. The standard for competency is defined in Dusky v. U.S. (1960) as sufficient

Question

2. The standard for competency is defined in Dusky v. U.S. (1960) as sufficient ability to assist one’s attorney and having a factual and rational understanding of the case and trial proceedings. It is a “low” bar, and most people (even most mentally ill people) are deemed competent. Should this be the same standard used by the court to determine when someone is competent to waive counsel and represent oneself at trial, like Colin Ferguson did? If so, why? If not, what should the standard to represent oneself be, and why?

Explanation / Answer

Most of the time people who are mentally insane get into a shooting spree killing lots of innocent people. When they come to the court, they will be checked whether they are competent enough to support their attorneys or will they be able to understand the court procedures. Another important thing about competency is that a person’s ability to fight his case without an attorney if they are mentally stable. The case of Colin Ferguson, he continuously argued that he didn’t commit the crime while the attorneys who were appointed to argue on behalf of him told that he was mentally alright. He had to send to check his mental stability before the right to lead his case on his own.

In my opinion, anyone who is confident of representing themselves in the court is a good option within the legal proceedings of the court. If we look at the fee one has to pay to an attorney is very huge these days. It becomes a hefty sum for people from poor and middle class families. Another view against it is that if people who involved in a mass shooting are given an opportunity, they might threaten or eliminate evidences as the case progress because they are insane.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 2
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.