Dusky Is Here to Stay—For Now

• Published date: 01 December 2015
• Date: 01 December 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15616656
• Subject Matter: Editorial

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2015, Vol. 59(14) 1503 –1504

© The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15616656

ijo.sagepub.com

Editorial

Dusky Is Here to Stay—

For Now

Even though the statutes regarding competency to stand trial vary, the majority of U.S.

states have adopted the Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) decision as the

legal standard for adjudication of competency. More precisely, in Dusky, the Supreme

Court of the United States affirmed that a defendant has the right to request and have

a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial. In the above case, Milton Dusky,

the defendant, asked for a reversal of his 45-year conviction and a new trial, and his

sentence was eventually reduced to 20 years.

Dusky basically states that competent defendants must clearly understand the

charges against them and have sufficient mental capacity to help their attorney to pre-

pare their own defense. This understanding must be rational and factual. Some state

statutes, as well as the Federal statute, do not include the rationality standard that is in

Dusky. Rational means reasonable understanding, and, indeed, in addition to the

above, defendants must have an understanding of the proceedings, the difference

between right and wrong, the function of their representing attorney and the other

court players, and the specific charges against them. Their executive capacity should

be intact. This last is the function of the prefrontal cortex of the brain, which is respon-

sible for decisional capacity and self-restraint. To be fully competent, they should be

free from mental illness (e.g., depression, schizophrenia, serious bipolar illness, etc.).

From a practical point of view, the defendants’ behavioral, cognitive, and emotional

self are under scrutiny prior to their being found competent to stand trial.

In the United States, some defendants examined for competency fail the test, and

they are considered unable to proceed to trial, not having the mental capacity required

by the Court. In such cases, the defendants are usually referred to a forensic correc-

tional institution for treatment to competency. Among the reasons for a lack of compe-

tency are psychological disorders or mental illness, an organic condition such as a

brain tumor, and, occasionally, Alzheimer’s disease.

In this issue of the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative

Criminology (IJOTCC), Ragatz, Vitacco, and Tross discuss competency to stand trial

from historical and legal perspectives, recognizing its essentiality for the proper func-

tioning of the American adversarial system of justice. Their work shows thoroughness,

Corresponding Author:

George B. Palermo, MD, MScCrim, Editor, IJOTCC, 2169 Silent Echoes Drive, Henderson,

NV 89044, USA.

Email: gbpalermo@gmail.com

616656IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X15616656International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

research-article2015