Fitness to Stand Trial: A General Principle of European Criminal Law?

Anker, L.; Dalhuisen, Lydia; Stokkel, Marije

doi:10.18352/ulr.174

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Legal Framework1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2016

2021

Publication Types

Select...

Article3

Other1

Book1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent5

Authors

Journals

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For these reasons, the Law Commission are developing a new set of criteria for fitness to plead in England and Wales (Law Commission, 2014). In the Netherlands the criteria are similar including if a person is unable to respond to the charges or to matters arising during court proceedings and if they are unable to instruct or respond to the counsel (Van den Anker, Dalhuisen, & Stokkel, 2011). In Germany the term 'Verfahrensunfähigkeit' (competence to participate in the trial) is used.…”

Section: Legal Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inpatient forensic-psychiatric care: Legal frameworks and service provision in three European countries

Edworthy

Sampson

Völlm

2016

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Legal Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inpatient forensic-psychiatric care: Legal frameworks and service provision in three European countries

Edworthy

Sampson

Völlm

2016

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

D usky v . U nited S tates

Franz

2017

The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dusky v. United States , 362 U.S. 402 (1960), is a US Supreme Court case about competency to stand trial. The case stands for the proposition that “due process does not permit the trial of persons who do not possess a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings, and who lack the ability to cooperate with their attorneys with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.” Dusky suffered from long‐term mental health issues. He was charged in a federal case with transporting a kidnap victim, a girl, across state lines. At his first trial, Dusky unsuccessfully tried to claim incompetency to stand trial, and was then convicted over his insanity defense and sentenced to 45 years. This conviction was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court then reversed and remanded to the trial court for an appropriate competency hearing, setting forth briefly the now famous standard of review. Competency matters have since arisen in the Supreme Court a number of times, and the Dusky standard has repeatedly been reaffirmed and expanded.

show abstract