Speakers gathering at symposium, coffee break:
Canadian: "I feel sorry for your folks - just embarrassing to have Trump fooling around, saying non-sense like inviting Russians intrusion in your own backyard and hit his opponents." (all below news)
Mexican: "Trump's Mexican Walls likely ban you Americans come out, instead of we Mexicans come to America. Why do people want to come to America as Trump said "everything is terrible!""
A UK Muslim: "Yes, Trump wants to ban your American Muslims out of America, as well as we outside Muslims. Not just Muslims, all of you guys are tied up in knots of not feeling secured - scared. Trump doesn't have sanity and competence."
~~~
Michael Bloomberg Calls Donald Trump “Dangerous Demagogue” At ...
~~
In movies and books, the phrases “not competent to stand trial” and “not guilty by reason of insanity” are thrown around quite frequently. But what are the differences between competency and sanity? Are they interchangeable?
The answer is no—the two concepts play significantly different roles in court. Competency determines whether a defendant will be able to appear at trial and understand the proceedings; sanity determines whether a defendant will be held responsible for his criminal actions. Therefore, a defendant who is competent to stand trial may nonetheless be found “not guilty by reason of insanity.” However, if a defendant is found not competent to stand trial, he will never be found guilty (or not guilty, for that matter) because no trial would be held in the first place. In other words, you can be declared legally competent and also legally insane. However, you cannot be declared legally insane unless you are also legally competent.
Here are the most basic differences between the two concepts:
Definition.
Competency is determined by whether the defendant can understand the nature and consequences of the criminal proceedings against him. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that the defendant must (1) have the sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; and (2) he or she must have a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceeding against him or her.
Meanwhile, the definition of insanity varies between states, and concerns the criminal acts allegedly committed by the defendant. (Read this blog post to learn about the different definitions of insanity.) For example, some states determine insanity by whether the defendant understood the nature and quality of his acts or did not know that his acts were wrong. Other states have different definitions. Some states do not have an insanity defense at all.
Decision-Maker.
Competency is determined by the judge. Insanity is determined by the jury.
Timing of Determination.
Competency is determined before the beginning of trial. Insanity, on the other hand, is determined at the end of the trial with the verdict.
Raising the Issue.
Competency can be raised as an issue by a party, or based on the judge’s observations of the defendant. If there is a reasonable basis to believe competency is at issue, the court has an absolute duty to order an evaluation. Based on the outcome of the evaluation, the judge will determine whether the defendant is competent to stand trial. Insanity, on the other hand, is an affirmative defense that must be pled by the defendant.
Source of Law.
The competency requirement arises from United States federal law, as a guarantee under the due process clause of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the insanity defense is determined by state law, and varies between states. Some states do not have the insanity defense at all, but all states must consider competency because it is a matter of constitutionality.
Timeframe Considered.
When evaluating competency, the judge will consider the defendant’s mental state at the time of the legal proceeding and trial. When evaluating insanity, the jury will consider the defendant’s mental state at the time the alleged crime was committed.
Consequences.
When a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial, it merely causes a hiatus in the criminal proceedings. In general, the mentally ill defendant is expected to receive treatment until he is deemed “restored to competence,” at which point, the trial would proceed. In 1972, the Supreme Court held that a defendant deemed incompetent may not be held for a longer period than is reasonable to determine whether he will be able to attain competence in the foreseeable future.
If a defendant is found insane, he will most likely be committed to a psychiatric hospital. However, commitment procedures vary depending on the state. Some states require a commitment hearing, others do it automatically. The length of time of commitment also varies. Studies show that defendants found “not guilty by reason of insanity” are likely to spend as much or more time confined in a psychiatric hospital as they would have if they had gone to prison instead.
Application.
Let’s say that a husband is prone to violent psychotic episodes that last for a few hours, but that when he is not experiencing an episode, he thinks and acts fairly normally. He ends up killing his wife during one of these episodes. He would most likely be deemed competent to stand trial, but also be acquitted by reason of insanity.
Now let’s consider a different situation. Say that a wife has trouble understanding her surroundings because of a hallucinatory mental illness, and perpetually believes that she is still in middle school. One day, she finds out that her husband cheated on her, gets angry, and kills him. At the beginning of the criminal proceedings, she sincerely believes that the courtroom is her middle school auditorium, that the proceedings are a homecoming dance, that the lawyers are students, and that the judge is the principal. In this case, she would be deemed incompetent to stand trial.
As a side note—if the wife’s case were to go to trial, she would probably be found guilty because her killing had nothing to do with her mental illness. However, she would never go to trial unless, or until, she is deemed to have reached competency.
_______________________
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this blog or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of any law firm or Psychology Today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/so-sue-me/201411/the-difference-between-competency-and-sanity
Ruth Lee Johnson J.D. So Sue Me
The Difference Between "Competency" and "Sanity"
? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ?
Russian hacking: What we know and Trump doesn’t
The inside track on Washington politics.
Last month, The Post reported:
CrowdStrike had installed software on the [Democratic National Committee’s] computers so that it could analyze data that could indicate who had gained access, when and how.
The firm identified two separate hacker groups, both working for the Russian government, that had infiltrated the network, said Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike co-founder and chief technology officer. The firm had analyzed other breaches by both groups over the past two years.
One group, which CrowdStrike had dubbed Cozy Bear, had gained access last summer and was monitoring the DNC’s email and chat communications, Alperovitch said.
The other, which the firm had named Fancy Bear, broke into the network in late April and targeted the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two files . . . . And they had access to the computers of the entire research staff — an average of about several dozen on any given day.
Experts now reiterate that Russia and these two hackers in particular are responsible for a slew of cyber attacks of governments perceived as a threat to Russia. Cozy Bear, for example, has been tied to hack operations of the State Department, according to Patrik Maldre, managing partner of Retel Partners, an Estonia-based consulting firm focusing on cybersecurity, explained in a media call this morning hosted by the Foreign Policy Initiative (moderated by Jamie Kirchick). “Many security intelligencies follow [the two hackers]. They are well financed and sophisticated.” Fancy Bear, for example, is suspected of being connected to Russian military intelligence and has been tied to a hack of the German parliament in the 2000s. Moreover, Maldre indicates that there is additional technological evidence (including Cyrillic metadata) to confirm the Russia connection. “What is surprising [about the DNC hack] is what happened after,” Maldre said. To send the stolen emails, he said, shows “intent not to just know but to play an active role” in U.S. elections.
It’s important to understand that Vladimir Putin — whom Donald Trump wants to ally with and admires — has been attacking democratic elections in Europe for some time. In 2014, malware was discovered in Ukrainian election software that would have destroyed confidence in the vote, to the benefit of pro-Russian forces. The Wall Street Journal detailed Russia’s cyberwarfare against Ukraine:
In just 72 hours, Ukraine would head to the polls in an election crucial to cementing the legitimacy of a new pro-Western government, desperate for a mandate as war exploded in the country’s east. If the commission didn’t offer its usual real-time online results, doubts about the vote’s legitimacy would further fracture an already divided nation.
The attack ultimately failed to derail the vote. Ukrainian computer specialists mobilized to restore operations in time for the elections. But the intrusion heralded a new era in Ukraine that showed how geopolitical confrontation with Russia could give rise to a nebulous new cabal of cyber foes, bent on undermining and embarrassing authorities trying to break with the Kremlin.
In the last two years, cyberattacks have hit Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defense and the presidential administration. Military communications lines and secure databases at times were compromised, according to Ukrainian presidential and security officials. A steady flow of hacked government documents have appeared on the Cerberus website.
David Kramer, the McCain Institute’s senior director for human rights and democracy, reiterated during this morning’s media call that Russia has an interest in disrupting U.S. alliances (as it did with a call involving assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland and a 2007 cyberattack on Estonia). He cites other Russian-identified operations to influence Latvian, Greek, Italian and French elections. Russia is, he says, attempting to discredit the West’s democratic systems and to create a moral equivalence between the West and Russia’s own corrupt, authoritarian system.
We saw this clearly in elections in Georgia in 2012. As noted in Forbes:
Some ten days before the vote, television channels broadcast mysteriously leaked videos of prison abuse. Pre-incited crowds hit the streets blaming the pro-Western government, creating chaos and instability. Meanwhile, on Russian-language channels, Russian military officials talked darkly of preparing to intercede in Georgia to restore order. Ultimately, conclusive information emerged linking the leaked video to pro-Kremlin Georgian mafia abroad–but too late to save the election for President [Mikheil] Saakashvili’s anti-Kremlin party.
Both Kramer and Maldre stressed the seriousness of the issue. “The current operation demonstrates a new level of boldness and brazenness … a strike at the heart of American democracy,” says Maldre.
It may be that Putin is trying directly to give a leg up to Trump (the Republican National Committee was apparently not hacked, after all), who unaware of or indifferent to Russia’s interests in harming the West, would abandon criticism of human rights and allow Putin freer rein in Europe. Regardless, the evidence that Putin is trying to harm American democracy is undeniable. Trump’s obliviousness to the Russian threat to the United States and our allies should be deeply disquieting, if not disqualifying.
Trump’s rhetoric puts Republicans in a tricky situation. This latest cyberattack fits into a larger picture of Russian malicious action against the West. But supporters of Trump are now faced with defending Trump’s egregious statements and pro-Putin stance. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) has refused to denounce Trump’s remarks and instead puts out a statement criticizing Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for suggesting that Trump not get a security briefing. He even had the nerve to compare Reid to Putin — when his own candidate is playing the role of Putin’s pet poodle. Remarkable.
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in an extended phone interview with Right Turn conceded that there is “a high confidence” Russia hacked into the DNC computers. He underscored that lots of countries, including China, have been hacking the United States. “They’ve been playing a cat-and-mouse game,” he says of foreign cyber-espionage. He nevertheless conceded that he has no information that some country other than the Russia hacked the DNC’s computers. He insisted at one point that the release of material during a U.S. election was “nothing new” and denied there was evidence that Russian hackers gave the information to WikiLeaks to release and influence our election, although he he also acknowledged WikiLeaks has acted as a conduit for leaks beneficial to Russia in the past. (How else would WikiLeaks have gotten the emails if not from the Russians?)
Asked whether Trump should be denouncing Russia rather than inviting (even jokingly) it to interfere with our election, Nunes claimed, to my amazement, “I didn’t see Trump trying to shy away from being critical of Russia.” He nevertheless spoke critically of the Obama administration for what he sees as growing accommodation to Putin. “We need to get tough with the Russians,” he said, reminding me that Congress has overwhelmingly voted to give defensive arms to Ukraine. Unfortunately, Trump’s henchmen took that position out of the RNC platform.
Trump not only invited more Russian espionage and suggested Russia might get to keep Crimea but also demonstrated his utter unfamiliarity with the issue and his desire to buddy up to Putin as the latter seeks to damage the West. In doing so, Trump left Republicans once more tied up in knots, a result that inevitably flows from supporting a candidate like Trump. Republicans can have a get-tough policy with Russia (and defend U.S. and European democracies), or they can tout Trump, but they should be honest: These two things are contradictory.
~~ ? ~~
See realtime coverage |
Davenport, Iowa (CNN) Donald Trump, after hearing speeches at the Democratic convention this week, said Thursday he wanted to "hit a number of those speakers so hard, their heads would spin.
|
Suggested for you »
PHILADELPHIA - Barack Obama's stirring address to the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night, a long-winded peroration of Bill Clinton-esque proportions, full of rhetorical peaks and valleys, had the feeling of a farewell address.
|