Competence (law)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. |
 |
| Evidence |
|---|
| Part of the common law series |
| Types of evidence |
| Testimony · Documentary evidence |
| Physical evidence · Digital evidence |
| Exculpatory evidence · Scientific evidence |
| Demonstrative evidence |
| Hearsay: in U.K. law · in U.S. law |
| Relevance |
| Burden of proof |
| Laying a foundation |
| Subsequent remedial measure |
| Character evidence · Habit evidence |
| Similar fact evidence |
| Authentication |
| Chain of custody |
| Judicial notice · Best evidence rule |
| Self-authenticating document |
| Ancient document |
| Witnesses |
| Competence · Privilege |
| Direct examination · Cross-examination |
| Impeachment · Recorded recollection |
| Expert witness · Dead man statute |
| Hearsay (and its exceptions) |
| Excited utterance · Dying declaration |
| Party admission · Ancient document |
| Declarations against interest |
| Present sense impression · Res gestae |
| Learned treatise · Implied assertion |
| Other areas of the common law |
| Contract law · Tort law · Property law |
| Wills and Trusts · Criminal law |
In law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings. Defendants that do not possess sufficient "competence" are usually excluded from criminal prosecution, while witnesses found not to possess requisite competence cannot testify.
Contents |
[edit] United States
In United States law, this protection has been ruled by the United States Supreme Court to be guaranteed under the due process clause. If the court determines that a defendant's mental condition makes him unable to understand the proceedings, or that he is unable to help in his defense, he is likely to be found incompetent. The specific test, as determined in Dusky v. United States, is whether the accused "has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Being determined incompetent is substantially different from undertaking an insanity defense; competence regards the defendant's state of mind at the time of the trial, while insanity regards his state of mind at the time of the crime.
In some cases, the word incompetent is used to describe persons who lack mental capacity to make contracts, handle their financial and other personal matters such as consenting to medical treatment, etc. and often need a legal guardian to handle their affairs.
[edit] Competence and Native Americans
Competency was used to determine whether individual Indians could use land that was allotted to them from the General Allotment Act (GAA) also known as the Dawes Act. The practice was used after in 1906 with the passing of the Burk Act, also known as the forced patenting act. This Act further amended the GAA to give the Secretary of the Interior the power to issue allotees a patent in fee simple to people classified ‘competent and capable.’ The criteria for this determination is unclear but meant that allotees deemed ‘competent’ by the Secretary of the Interior would have their land taken out of trust status, subject to taxation, and could be sold by the allottee.
The Act of June 25th 1910 further amends the GAA to give the Secretary of the Interior the power to sell the land of deceased allotees or issue patent and fee to legal heirs. This decision is based on a determination made by the Secretary of Interior whether the legal heirs are ‘competent’ or ‘incompetent’ to manage their own affairs.
[edit] England and Wales
In English law, fitness to plead is the equivalent. There is no reason to punish a criminal if they did not know what they did wrong in the first place. when defendents are not able to participate in the legal system, then why should the legal system apply to them. there are several different levels of competnce. one level is known as adjudicative competence. this level basically means that defendents are obviously competent enought to plead guilty for a crime they committed, and they do voluntarilly. competence also has many loopholes in which defendents can claim not having competnce at the time of the occurence. one example of this would be momentary amnesia. momentery amnesia does not happen very often and is rarely ever used in court, let alone even believed. medication is also a competence issue as well. there are issues raised about how people need medication to stay competent. many people try and use that defense in court saying, "I am competent with medication, btu when i committed the act of crime i was off my medication;" that defense rarely works as well. basically, competence, dealing with law, has many factors which are involved with it, as well as several different loopholes that desperate defendents try and use in court and miserably fail.
[edit] See also
- principle of conferral in the context of European Union law
