Crimes Against Humanity at the International Criminal Court - Case Study Example

Case Reports al Affiliation) Case Reports Competency to Stand Trial (CTS) Dennis Brown- US Supreme court Dennis Brown was the owner of a famous pharmaceutical firm in US. He was put under arrest at his home on September 5th 1991 for being associated with drug trafficking by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The court recommended a forensic psychological test to examine his competency to stand the trial. Brown, a 65 years man who was suffering from schizophrenia was found competent to stand the trial and was given a 23 years sentence. A petition was filed at the US Supreme Court after the sentence where the petitioner demanded that his conviction be overturned on the basis that he was not competent to stand trial when the case was taking place. Brown complained that his state of health was not put into consideration accordingly as it is required by the law. He also claimed that he was denied sufficient time to consult with his lawyer. After analysis of the verification, the court decided to award the court order of certiorari. The court judges unanimously decided that for a defendant to be competent to stand trial defendant should have a plenty at hand capability to confer with his lawyer by way of a sensible level of coherent understanding as well as a coherent in addition to truthful understanding of the actions not in favor of him. The major issue was if the court of law could sentence an accused person without considering the current health status of the accused and before carrying out a proper mental psychological examination. The Supreme Court made comprehensible that a concise mental status examination was not satisfactory. His trial was remanded for retrial, at which point his decree was abridged to 11 years. At this time, he was given enough time to consult with his lawyer. The court’s ruling was because Brown was a possible drug dealer involved with ferrying drugs to third world countries. However, his health status and forensic psychological examinations were not considered during his previous sentence. The forensic psychological examination and other psychiatric tests should be carried out effectively before a court sentence is made. However, his sentence was not suspended but reduced because there was evidence of the accusations against him. Criminal involvement Charles Taylor Crimes against humanity at International Criminal Court (ICC) Charles Taylor was the president of Liberia for more than ten years. He was arrested on 29th March 2006 after the International Criminal Court had issued his arrest warrant two years earlier. The allegations upheld by ICC incorporated crimes against humankind for execution, massacre, rape, enslavement, and war felony for works of bombing, communal chastisement against the common citizens, brutality to existence and human being, indignations upon individual pride, plunder, and abductions. amongst those operations were attacking common people, on compassionate and medical workers, on international relations missions and recruitment of children below 15 years of age in the fortified forces. Basing on the accusation, the Revolutionary united front, plus the Armed forces revolutionary council shared a general sketch and reason. Therefore, forming a combined scandalous endeavor which consisted in execution, together with Taylor, the combined events essential to add and work out political authority and be in charge of the land of their neighbors Sierra Leone, and in particular over the areas with diamond mines. His trial commenced on 4th June 2007 and he was given a 50 years sentence. His defense team unsuccessfully filed a petition against his sentence. Taylor had earlier shown opposition against his accusations as well as the arrest warrant given against him by ICC claiming that, as a Head of State, during the time the condemnation and the arrest warrant were given, he had the right of being immune against judgment. Taylor lamented that he was denied his right for fair trial. His defense also claimed that United Nations experts in Liberia denied them a chance to present a report. The case was to determine whether Taylor was responsible for all claims against him. The court ruled basing on the 20 witnesses that gave their testimonies against him. His state of health was also put in consideration to ensure that he was at good health condition both mentally and physically. His health was good for him to continue with his trial. The witnesses against Mr. Taylor gave substantial evidence according to the ruling chambers there was clear evidence that he was involved in the accusations majorly war and crime against humanity. He was therefore detained and was to serve as an example to other African presidents. The required legal procedures should be followed in such cases at the ICC. In this case, the trial chamber postponed the case severally to give enough time for Taylor and his defense team to prepare for the case. The trial chamber was also given enough time to analyze the evidence issued before passing their judgment (JIMD, 2012). The right to receive mental health treatment Clinton vs. Anderson at Supreme Court Clinton was arrested on 23 August 1982 for breaching the agreement they signed with Anderson, his business partner. The Supreme Court suspended his trial because it was confirmed that he was incompetent to be tried because of his mental health. The psychiatric examinations had proved that he was not fit to be tried and as such, he should be given his right to receive mental health treatment before being tried. It was confirmed that he was not in good health state to tried therefore his trial was suspended. In common, if a defendant is established ineffectual to go on to test, the illegal procedures are postponed. In such cases, where the accusations are minor, the trials are frequently cancelled or else a plea bargain might be completed in which the claims are resumed if the person being accused accepts to look for medical attention. if not, the defendant is as a rule dedicated to a psychiatric hospital for management pending the defendant is reinstated to capability, at which time the case will continue. Clinton was a deaf-mute who was not able to read, write down or converse in supplementary ways, was charged with one accusation of breaching a deal they agreed with his business partner. Competency examinations in addition to testimony by the assessing treatment center revealed that Clintons aptitude was excessively small for him to be aware of the kind of the claims plotted against him. Nevertheless, if he had ability to build up the capability to converse, and that the forecast for reinstatement of capability was not clear even if he were not a hearing-impaired voiceless. In spite of the indication that the state of his county of residence lacked amenities to take care of Clintons troubles, Clinton was handed over to a psychiatric facility for management (Brown, 2013). The court ruled in favor of Clinton because his condition could not allow him to be judged in a court of law. The defendant could have also signed the agreement without clearly understanding what it meant. All citizens aligned in court have a right to receive mental treatment before they are tried. The court followed the right procedure by handing him over to a psychiatric hospital after which the case will resume. Right to refuse psychiatric treatment In 1973, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a case against Jane who was being accused of causing violence in a restaurant, that unintentional hospitalization and management violates her civil rights. The defendant has to be showing signs of actions that are a hazard to their own bodies or other people and a court array have to be conventional for not less than a short period for detention. The management has to take place in the smallest amount of restrictive surroundings probable. This decision severely limited involuntary treatment and z Jane and to other similar cases within the United States. The statutes differ to some extent from state to state (JIMD, 2011). The court upheld its decision considering that Jane was a single mother of two children. Her right to refuse psychiatric treatment was necessary because she could not get time to cater for her children’s needs. Rationalization for spontaneous action is frequently attempted by giving emphasis to the possible for relentless consequences that might result from lack of management, for example being victimized, violence and committing suicide Treatment of sex offenders Two university students in a court of law in Chicago Two male students from a local university were arrested in 2001 and arraigned in a court of law for committing sexual crime. They were arrested after the offended woman reported to the university management. The offended said that the offense took place in one of the defendant rooms. They appeared in court on 21st April 2001 where they were sentenced 5 years in jail each. The defendants claimed that they did the act at the will of the offended. The judge proposed that the two should undergo psychiatric examination to confirm whether they at their sound minds. The case was postponed until the psychiatric analysis was over. The psychological examination confirmed that they were in good state of their minds. All sex offenders should undergo psychological examination before they can be tried in a court. The court gave out the ruling basing on the fact that the incidence happened in their room. References Brown, G. (2013). JIMD reports-- Case and research reports. Berlin: Springer. Top of Form Bottom of Form JIMD reports-- Case and research reports,. (2011). Berlin: Springer. Top of Form Bottom of Form JIMD reports-- Case and research reports,. (2012). Berlin: Springer. Read More