home

Elizabeth Smart's Kidnapper Ruled Incompetent

Brian David Mitchell, the alleged kidnapper of Utah teen Elizabeth Smart, has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial. This is not much of a surprise considering:

He has been removed from the courtroom several times during competency hearings over the past seven months for singing hymns and shouting Biblical admonitions, The Associate Press reported. He has called himself a prophet named "Emmanuel."

His wife and charged accomplice, Wanda Barzee, was ruled incompetent in January. The Salt Lake City Tribune reports:

In a 60-page decision, Judge Judith Atherton said that although Mitchell has an ''adequate capacity'' to comprehend the charges against him, the possible penalties and the adversary nature of the proceedings, he fails the competency test in other areas. Atherton said Mitchell has an impaired ability to communicate with his attorneys, engage in reasoned choice of legal strategies, manifest appropriate courtroom behavior and testify relevantly.

That means Mitchell, 51, will join his wife, Wanda Eileen Barzee, 59, at the Utah State Hospital for treatment aimed at making them well enough to face prosecution. Barzee has been at the hospital since March 2004.

< Italy Issues More Warrants For CIA Agents | Alberto Gonazales: Roberts Not Obligated to Follow Roe v. Wade >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I know there'll be some who will declare that this is another example of a justice system gone soft. But if anybody was ever incompetent for trial, wouldn't it be these two?

    Re: Elizabeth Smart's Kidnapper Ruled Incompetent (none / 0) (#2)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Will they ever be "well" enough to face prosecution? And if so, how much responsibility should they bear for when they were incompetant?

    Re: Elizabeth Smart's Kidnapper Ruled Incompetent (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Well perhaps they'll never get better. Can they ever be de-institutionalised or is it that they can't be released without being charged for thier crimes and still held? Statuate of limitations? I personally don't think anyone should be able to duck prosecution for being or acting nuts. They would still be dangerous if they were released and they did break the law, sane or not. So why not try them, weigh the evidence and if they're found guilty but insane then they can go into an institution until they are straightened out, released and then start serving thier sentence. After all he did commit an awful crime against the Smart family. 'Emmanuel' et al would get the treatment they need and society would be able to punish their crimes.

    Re: Elizabeth Smart's Kidnapper Ruled Incompetent (none / 0) (#4)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    Keep in mind that these folks aren't exactly going to be walking about free during their incompetency. They're going to be institutionalized, which raises another question (at least generally) -- how long can the state keep someone in an institution without having actually convicted them of something?

    This sounds a bit like the movie Richard Gere was in with Ed Horton where he conned the lawyer and got off from killing the priest, can't remember the name. Were they sane during her abduction and while they molested her? Does/has anyone asked Elizabeth Smart what they were like during the time they had her?

    Re: Elizabeth Smart's Kidnapper Ruled Incompetent (none / 0) (#6)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    Nolo. To answer your question: Until they're better. Since shrinks think the world of their abilities, that will be about six months. Lock up the kids.

    Re: Elizabeth Smart's Kidnapper Ruled Incompetent (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    Don't confuse legal "incompetency" (which relates to the time of trial) with legal "insanity" (which is concerned with the time of the offense). The moral principle behind each rule is somewhat different. Our legal culture views a person who, because of severe mental illness, cannot understand the nature of the charges, or the roles of the important actors in the system (prosecutor, defense attorney, judge), cannot make knowing and intelligent decisions on fundamental choices (plead guilty or not guilty, for example; choose trial by jury or judge, for another), and/or who cannot assist in his/her own defense (by relating facts, identifying witnesses, and cooperating with defense counsel) as "incompetent." This is because it is a fundamental human right not to be proceeded against and punished without an understanding of why, and a chance to defend yourself. Somewhat different is the idea that it is inappropriate for society to punish someone whose harmful behavior is the result of illness and not of a (more or less) free choice to do wrong rather than right. Most defendants who have an insanity defense (not that there are very many of them) are nevertheless competent to stand trial. Some defendants who have no insanity defense nevertheless are incompetent (such as those who have become incompetent later).

    Yes, a very important clarification, Peter G. Also, as to the question of how long the state can hold someone who is incompetent without convicting them . . . In most states, indefinitely. As long as the charges are still pending, and as long as someone has not achieved competency, they can continue to be held in a mental institution. If it is concluded that there is no substantial likelihood of the individual ever becoming competent, then it is required that the individual be civilly committed under civil commitment procedures. Even if someone is civilly committed, however, they will still almost always reside in the same facility--it is just a slightly different procedure. Interestingly, I understand that the Smart family was actually pleased with the decision because it means that Mitchell will remain locked up--albeit in a maximum security mental institution instead of a jail or prison--and Elizabeth will not have to testify.

    Re: Elizabeth Smart's Kidnapper Ruled Incompetent (none / 0) (#9)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Thanks, txpublicdefender -- that's what I thought. But Richard, if either of these folks regain competency, they're not going to be set free. They'll have to stand trial.

    Re: Elizabeth Smart's Kidnapper Ruled Incompetent (none / 0) (#11)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Nolo. Dark. Thanks for the comfort. But I have a question: Suppose a guy is not guilty by reason of insanity. In other words, he was found competent to stand trial, but found to have been nuts at the time of the crime. If he is "fixed", how can the state hold him? Due to double jeopardy, they can't even try him again. I believe some states have the verdict, "Guilty, but insane", which is supposed to address that. If I understand Smart situation, the charges are in abeyance until he is competent to stand trial? Then he's tried? How's this: At the trial, he's found not guilty by reason of insanity. But if he's competent to stand trial, is he insane now? He's "not guilty", and probably not insane, so he can't be involuntarily institutionalized. I hope somebody's done some planning to avoid this possibility.

    Richard, Generally when someone is found insane at a criminal trial they will be institutionalized for a LONG time. In Arizona where I practice, a person found "guilty except insane" can be held for a term up the length of the prison sentence they could have gotten if found guilty and not insane. For example, I have a client who is scheduled to go on trial in about a month who was completely nuts at the time of the shooting (and still is). He spent almost a year in the state hospital being restored to competency. If he's found insane, he can be held up to 25 years. Potentially, he could even be held for the rest of his life if, based on any aggravating factors found, he could be sentenced to naural life without parole (not likely in this case due to his extreme mental illness). In other words, someone who commits a terrible crime because they were completely nuts will not be walking the street anytime soon regardless of how the jury finds. The notion that people can get off on an insanity plea and get out soon due to a miracle cure is a myth.

    Re: Elizabeth Smart's Kidnapper Ruled Incompetent (none / 0) (#13)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Thanks for the information.

    Re: Elizabeth Smart's Kidnapper Ruled Incompetent (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Methinks some folks watch too much of Boston Legal and Law and Order and derive their opinions on sentencing from the entertainment biz..... Larry, Peter, TX, great explanations thanks.

    Re: Elizabeth Smart's Kidnapper Ruled Incompetent (none / 0) (#15)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    JL Is Boston Legal the one with the moonbat who had to be institutionalized on account of BDS? His name is Vincent something or other. Never watched it and quit L&O when I no longer needed something to put me to sleep either before or after dinner. And neither of those are likely--L&O, anyway taking the extremely liberal position when at all possible--to fret about really bad guys getting off because of a too-compassionate system. It's the rightwinger bad guys who get off to the prescribed irritation of the audience, when anybody gets off. So, no. Wrong again. However, many years ago in Michigan, there were a couple of cases where this was a possibility, since the Guilty but Insane verdict wasn't law and the requirement to keep the guy in durance vile for as long as he would have been sentenced was not law, either. The GbutI law was a reaction to a couple of close calls.

    Re: Elizabeth Smart's Kidnapper Ruled Incompetent (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    RA: Obviously, Boston Legal is too advanced for you, I give you too much credit. It must be reruns of LA Law.