NCJ Number
88312
Date Published
1982
Length
12 pages
Annotation
The mentally retarded person can be fairly adjudicated in the present structure of criminal processing provided appropriate adjustments are made in determining competence to stand trial, culpability, and sentencing.
Abstract
The primary purpose of a competency proceeding is to remove a 'helpless' person from the trial process so as to preclude the possibility of his/her not having an adequate defense. The intent of subsequent commitment proceedings is that the accused will have competence restored so that a proper defense against the charge can be mounted. The difficulty with mentally retarded defendants is that the basic condition of mental retardation is not capable of revision. A special procedure with some merit has been proposed by Burt and Morris, i.e., to limit competency commitments to 6 months, after which if competency has not been established, the charges must either be dismissed or a trial conducted which is particularly responsive to the defendant's inadequacies. Modifications might include expanded pretrial discovery of the prosecution's case and a particularly heavy burden of proof. While a mentally retarded defendant cannot be defended under the strict requirement of the insanity plea, the defendant's mental condition can be argued as a factor affecting criminal intent, which may produce dismissal or conviction on a reduced charge. The sentencing of mentally retarded defendants should give special attention to their mental condition. It is the responsibility of the legislature, the corrections system, and community services to develop a range of services that will include meeting the needs of mentally retarded offenders. Sentencing must see that the mentally retarded offender can benefit from such services. Thirty-six notes are listed.