Competence Was Linchpin For Both Sides In Tucson Case (NYT)

[struggle4progress]

By FERNANDA SANTOS
Published: August 5, 2012

PHOENIX — From the outset, the case against Jared L. Loughner carried risks for both the prosecution and the defense.

Legal experts said there was ample evidence to prove that Mr. Loughner was the man behind last year’s shooting rampage in Tucson, which killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Gabrielle Giffords, a member of the House of Representatives who was holding a constituent event in the parking lot of a supermarket.

But a conviction was far from certain. Even if Mr. Loughner was deemed legally sane to stand trial, jurors could conclude that he was not when the shootings occurred, the legal experts said.

His lawyers were hoping to push for an insanity defense, but if convicted, Mr. Loughner, 23, would most likely face a death sentence. Instead, he is scheduled to plead guilty on Tuesday, after psychiatric evaluations and notes from his court-ordered treatment at a federal psychiatric hospital in Springfield, Mo., established that he was fit to stand trial, according to two people briefed on the developments who were granted anonymity to discuss a legal proceeding ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/us/guilty-plea-expected-in-tucson-shooting-rampage.html?_r=1

[Kalidurga]

1. If someone is insane at the time of the crime...

How can they be deemed sane retroactively? It makes no sense to me. If he was insane at the time then holding him responsible later on when he is would be as wrong as putting him on trial when he is not competent to stand trial. We need a much better understanding of mental illness and why some are violent when they are mentally ill. We also need a system of justice, but that is another post.

[struggle4progress]

2. Whether or not a person currently understands the proceedings against him is a question to be

resolved before the trial commences; however, if the defense and prosecution cannot agree about whether or not the person knew what he was doing at the time of the crime, then the competence, of the accused at the time of the crime, may be a question of fact to be resolved by the jury

[Kalidurga]

3. If experts can't agree on competence and really understand it after the fact of the crime...

how can we expect a jury to understand this?