Today I bought the new People Magazine with Elizabeth Smart on the cover. I followed this story with more fervor than any other news story before or since. I'm not sure if this was due to my age when it happened (high school) or my religion (Elizabeth is Mormon), but I do remember crying when Elizabeth was found and wondering if she would recover psychologically. I remember thinking that I would have probably rather been killed than go through what I imagined she went through in her 9 months of captivity. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with her story, here is the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Smart_kidnapping
Six and a half years after her ordeal, Elizabeth finally got to testify against her captors last week at an evidentiary hearing. The details in People were gruesome, and there was probably much more revealed in her testimony that is not public knowledge. I'm sure there was also more physical and psychological abuse that she will never discuss - I can only imagine how violating it must feel to know everyone can read or hear about the abuse she suffered.
Now on to why I am writing this blog: For 6 years, Elizabeth's kidnappers and abusers have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial. Now that Elizabeth has testified, the Smarts are hoping that the judge will rule that her primary captor and rapist will be forced to stand trial. He was not at the hearing because he refused to stop singing a Hymn and disrupting the court. Ed Smart, Elizabeth's father, believes that the incompetency of this man is a fraud. He wants to stay in a mental hospital rather than stand trial.
My question is: When charges are this grotesque (kidnap, rape of a minor up to four times a day for nine months, starvation, and physical abuse), should mental incompetency even be an option on the table?
I obviously haven't interviewed this man (or his wife) myself, and I have a long way to go before I could ever be considered an expert in this area - and I'm not sure I will ever be considered an expert in THIS particular area - but my inkling is that no psychological disorder would prevent me, as a psychologist, from judging this man competent to stand trial. I mean, he is OBVIOUSLY mentally disturbed and, I think, evil: Anyone who could do the things that this man did cannot be in a fit state of mind - he probably has a host of Axis I and II disorders. But should this prevent justice from being served?
I have no idea what diagnoses this man has been given, but I do know that the average Schizophrenic person, the average mentally retarded person, the average person with any psychiatric condition does NOT kidnap, beat, rape and otherwise brutalize children, or anyone for that matter. My blood is boiling just THINKING that he might continue to live without punishment. A psychiatric hospital is not prison - it's just not.
So what do you - my readers - think? Am I a callously cold psychologist-in-training, or should psychologically ill people be held accountable for their actions when they violate all standards of morality? Is it ETHICAL to Elizabeth to be the psychologist keeping this person from trial? I would really like to hear your take on this because I am appalled that the Smart family has had to endure over six years of waiting for justice and they may continue to wait in vain forever.
1 comment:
I agree. I think only until he stands trial can one determine his mental competency. And even given such, it doesn't change the fact that what he did was wrong and that he should be held accountable for the hideous things he has done.
Perhaps it's cyclical. Maybe his committing such wretched acts has made him go more insane because he's loosing his moral compass. Either way, being held accountable can teach the sane and insane, and keep more people safe.
Post a Comment