Skip to main content

The Nature of Competence to Participate in Adjudication

  • Chapter
Adjudicative Competence

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Law & Psychology ((PILP,volume 15))

  • 92 Accesses

Abstract

The requirement that criminal defendants be competent to participate in the adjudication of their cases is deeply rooted in Anglo-American law. Scholars generally agree that the underlying goal has been to promote fairness in the criminal justice system (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997). Subsidiary to the promotion of fairness, competent participation of defendants has several distinct purposes: to enhance the accuracy of factual determinations; to preserve the dignity of the criminal process; and to promote the defendant’s exercise of self-determination in making important decisions in his defense (Bonnie, 1990).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. An instance of “hard paternalism” is when one overrides the wishes of a competent actor who has made a voluntary choice on the ground that what the person wants to do is not in his or her best interests. Libertarians who object to hard paternalism will usually accept some form of “soft” paternalism under which the intervention is made because the subject is not competent to decide what is in his or her best interests or because of some other defect of voluntariness. The residual controversies relate to the definition of the conditions which justify paternalistic interventions (e.g. impairment of decisional abilities). See generally, Feinberg (1986), pp. 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Poythress, N.G., Bonnie, R.J., Monahan, J., Otto, R., Hoge, S.K. (2002). The Nature of Competence to Participate in Adjudication. In: Adjudicative Competence. Perspectives in Law & Psychology, vol 15. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8493-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8493-7_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-4629-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-8493-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics