Incompetence is not injustice

What this protester and others may not grasp is the important distinction between mental competency to stand trial and lack of criminal responsibility due to insanity. Insanity concerns the matter of whether the defendant, at the time of the alleged crime, understood what he or she was doing, as well as the fact that it was wrong. By contrast, incompetency considers whether the defendant, in his or her present state of mind, can communicate effectively with counsel and therefore assist in preparing a defense.

More important than this distinction in definition is the difference in legal implications. Whereas insanity may negate culpability (and more about this issue in future posts), incompetency only postpones the criminal proceedings until such time as the defendant is marginally well enough to comprehend and communicate. If and when the defendant regains competency, the trial proceeds. There is no advantage for the accused in such delay, and no implication regarding criminal responsibility for the crime.

Actually, there is one possible advantage, although it is a long stretch An exceedingly long trial delay may make it difficult to prosecute if it impacts on the availability of witnesses and the quality of their recollections. However, the data on incompetency cases show that such delays are typically a matter of months, not years.

So be patient, good citizens of Connecticut. Your chance to see justice served should come in relatively short order. Delaying the system—and for good reason—hardly constitutes beating the system.