"GOD SAID TO ABRAHAM/KILL ME A SON": WHY THE INSANITY DEFENSE AND THE INCOMPETENCY STATUS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH AND REQUIRED BY THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE

Perlin discusses the significance of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilites and why, when it is read as an integrated document, the interpretations in the General Comments and the supporting literature must be unequivocally rejected. Next, he considers the singular role of the insanity defense and incompetency status in legal history. Here, he acknowledges that, while pleading insanity may sometimes be a bad option, it is still one that needs to be retained, and retention of the plea reinforces the reality that raising the incompetency status is not an admission of factual guilt. Thus, trying a person who is unable to cooperate with her counsel, rationally understand the proceedings against her, or both, makes it more likely that she will be convicted of crimes of which she may not be guilty, a base and basic violation of human decency.