Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Criminal Law and Procedure (2)
- Indiana v. Edwards (2)
- Self-representation (2)
- Adjudicative competence (1)
- Bonnie's competency standard (1)
-
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Criminal trials (1)
- Mental health and the courts (1)
- Mental health court advocates (1)
- Psychology and Psychiatry (1)
- Representational competence (1)
- Sixth Amendment and the mentally ill (1)
- Sixth amendment (1)
- Social Problem-Solving Theory (1)
- Therapeutic jurisprudence (1)
- Therapeutic rehabilitation (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Theorizing Mental Health Courts, E. Lea Johnston
Theorizing Mental Health Courts, E. Lea Johnston
E. Lea Johnston
To date, no scholarly article has analyzed the theoretical basis of mental health courts, which currently exist in forty-three states. This Article examines the two utilitarian justifications proposed by mental health court advocates—therapeutic jurisprudence and therapeutic rehabilitation—and finds both insufficient. Therapeutic jurisprudence is inadequate to justify mental health courts because of its inability, by definition, to resolve significant normative conflict. In essence, mental health courts express values fundamentally at odds with those underlying the traditional criminal justice system. Furthermore, the sufficiency of rehabilitation, as this concept appears to be defined by mental health court advocates, depends on the validity of …
Representational Competence: Defining The Limits Of The Right To Self-Representation At Trial, E. Lea Johnston
Representational Competence: Defining The Limits Of The Right To Self-Representation At Trial, E. Lea Johnston
E. Lea Johnston
In 2008, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment permits a trial court to impose a higher competence standard for self-representation than to stand trial. The Court declined to delineate a permissible representational competence standard but indicated that findings of incompetence based on a lack of decisionmaking ability would withstand constitutional scrutiny. To date, no court or commentator has suggested a comprehensive competence standard to address the particular decisional context of self-representation at trial. Conceptualizing self-representation as an exercise in problem solving, this Article draws upon social problem-solving theory to identify abilities necessary for autonomous decisionmaking. The Article develops …
Setting The Standard: A Critique Of Bonnie's Competency Standard And The Potential Of Problem-Solving Theory For Self-Representation At Trial, E. Lea Johnston
Setting The Standard: A Critique Of Bonnie's Competency Standard And The Potential Of Problem-Solving Theory For Self-Representation At Trial, E. Lea Johnston
E. Lea Johnston
In Indiana v. Edwards, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment permits a trial court to impose a higher competency standard for self-representation than to stand trial. The Court declined to specify the contents of a permissible representational competence standard, but cited with support the construct of adjudicative competence developed by Professor Richard Bonnie. While Bonnie's proposal may provide an appropriate framework for evaluating the competence of represented defendants' decisions, it is at most a starting point for defining the capacities needed for self-representation at trial. This Article begins by exposing three reasons why Bonnie's approach is …