Right to trial by jury.

[galtgulch]

We all know that the U S Constitution's Bill of Rights, Amendment VI states that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." etc

Also the Bill of Rights Amendment VII states that "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, a right of trial by jury shall be preserved" etc.

Now a person, a citizen or not, who resides in these United States, having been arrested and charged with a crime, but where his or her competency to stand trial is in question, may, in some states be committed by a judge to a hospital for psychiatric and forensic evaluation and treatment, and recommitted for up to one year at a time, for continued psychiatric treatment, as long as a judge continues to find such a person not competent to stand trial for his or her initial charges.

Notice that the person may continue to lose his or her freedom, which certainly has a value in excess of twenty dollars, when incarcerated for up to six months or one year, again and again, without "a right to a 'trial or hearing' in front of a jury of his peers."

I am aware of no case where a person in such a situation has even requested a trial by jury instead of a hearing in front of a judge. However I should think that the Seventh Amendment cited above in part, does guarantee a trial by jury. But I am told that there is no basis in Common Law for a mentally ill, or presumed mentally ill person ever had a right to a hearing or trial by jury before being committed for treatment of the mental illness to a hospital.

On the surface this appears to be an unconstitutional action by the courts which appears to put the citizen who is "mentally ill" in a special category to which the Bill of Rights does not apply.

Admittedly the outcomes might be the same even if heard by a jury as with a judge. The question might be moot because there is plenty of precedent for what is being done to continue to be done. The same question does apply to cases where the person is found to be Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity and continues to be recommitted year after year by a hearing before a judge and not a jury.

I would appreciate any enlightening commentary. My attempts to find any case law on the subject has been in vain. It appears that once it was decided that "mentally ill" prisoners or defendents had a right to an attorney, that there were cases brought to enable those attorneys representing them to be paid.

Any lawyers or judges here? I'll settle for a Constitutional scholar or just rational discussion. Admittedly I am at times naive and have always assumed that the Bill of Rights applied to each and every one of us, and it doesn't make sense to me that someone who is mentally ill loses his or her rights at least to a jury before losing his or her freedom. What am I missing here?

galt

[galtgulch]

U S Constitution's Bill of Rights, Amendment VI states that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." etc

Bill of Rights Amendment VII states that "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, a right of trial by jury shall be preserved" etc.

I am disheartened that no one has chosen to comment and this thread is about to disappear from the list of new posts. That is why I am responding to my own post to put it back up on the top of the pile. Objectivists are supposed to value individual freedom and due process of law with objective laws based on the rights of the individual.

I suppose no one cares but I think that such cases should give the "mentally ill" person the choice of a hearing in front of a jury or a judge. The outcome might be the same but I think more convincing might be necessary for a jury before committing a person to one year in a psychiatric prison hospital.

galt

Edited May 27, 2007 by galtgulch

[Wolf DeVoon]

It's a wider subject than you suppose, compassing juveniles, bankruptcy, probate, nuisance, corporation shareholder and takeover suits, administrative law cases (regulation, court of claims) and military tribunals. Jihadis are insane, for instance. Try getting them a jury trial.

I don't have much to say about the U.S. Constitution, which is a dead letter IMO.

W.

Edited May 27, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[BaalChatzaf]

It's a wider subject than you suppose, compassing juveniles, bankruptcy, probate, nuisance, corporation shareholder and takeover suits, administrative law cases (regulation, court of claims) and military tribunals. Jihadis are insane, for instance. Try getting them a jury trial.

I don't have much to say about the U.S. Constitution, which is a dead letter IMO.

W.

Not quite. Both the first and second amendments are operative.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

In 2005 on Constitution Day at Cato there was discussion of a case in North Carolina were a man was held for at least three years. He tried to have the case thrown out because of the speedy trial proviso. He lost. He had not tried to delay his case which does happen.

Edited May 27, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Aggrad02]

I don't know much about the law, but here are some random ideas.

It seems like the majority of the time that a defendent is deemed too metally ill to stand trial it is at the request of the defending attorney. Maybe by motioning for a stay of trial the defendent is waving his trial by jury in this case.

Also it may have to do with the cruel and unsual punishment clause of the constitution. Punishing someone who is mentally ill is usually deemd cruel and unusual, therefore what is the point of a trial.

And finally people who are a threat to society (criminals in jail, mentally ill, and people who are contagious, like the TB guy) are generally removed from society. If someone is not mentally fit to stand trial then the judge cannot release them into society for the same reason.

And lastly if someone is to mentally ill to stand trial, then I suppose that they would be too mentally ill to even request a trial by jury.

Let me know your thoughts

--Dustan

[John Dailey]

~ One little monkey wrench prob with this whole discussion is a concept specified in the very title of this thread's question: 'mentally ill.'

~ There's an implied question which is chronically overlooked in this whole subject: What should be the legally ('scientifically'?) established criteria for deciding what should be the proper protocols/procedures/criteria (yes, criteria-FOR-'criteria'; complicated, I know) for how any human is to be judged so, and more relevently: *who* should be the decider of, 1st, the criteria-set itself, and 2nd, whether or not they apply to person 'X.'

LLAP

J:D

Edited June 9, 2007 by John Dailey

[Chris Grieb]

John; I think you are hitting the problem which judges, juries are trying to deal with. It is worth noting that very few insanity defenses are excepted at trial. One of the few in the last thirty years is John Hinckley for the attempted murder of President Reagan and the wounding of others. A diminished capacity defense was used in the case of Dan White who shot Mayor Mosconi and Supervisor Harvey Milk at the San Francisco City Hall. White's defense was called the "twinkie" defense because White had been eating a great deal of junk food. The voters of California reduced the use of this defense in the next election.

Thomas Szasz has led a crusade against the whole concept of mental illness and insanity defense such as the Hinckley and White defenses.

Dr Szasz appeared at Cato in the last two years and is still as sharp as a box of tacks.

Edited June 10, 2007 by Chris Grieb