Dignity in the gray zone: Indiana v Edwards
In a pronouncement that seemed tailor-made for Ferguson, the Court stated that "a self-representation right at trial will not 'affirm the dignity' of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel . . . and may undercut the most basi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Psychiatric times 2008-11, Vol.25 (13), p.41 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 13 |
container_start_page | 41 |
container_title | The Psychiatric times |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Knoll, IV, James L |
description | In a pronouncement that seemed tailor-made for Ferguson, the Court stated that "a self-representation right at trial will not 'affirm the dignity' of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel . . . and may undercut the most basic of the Constitution's criminal law objectives, providing a fair trial [page 2].\n At a time when all society is trying to mainstream the mentally impaired, the Court permits them to be deprived of a basic constitutional right-for their own good [page 11]." [...] the meaning of "dignity" itself is often very unclear. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_204568471</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A188584104</galeid><sourcerecordid>A188584104</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g204t-cd0fc032cdaf29ae4c2b8274b0ad0480f39cb044800a211ef25b5f07288c511d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptjj9PwzAUxDOARCl8B7OwoKBnx24ctqoUqFSJBeboxX9So-AU2wWVT4-lMnSobnhPp9-d7qyYgGyqkjUgLorLGD8AqKxnclLcPbreu7QnzpO0MaQPuCe_ozcPZOW1Q4_kmyz1DwYdr4pzi0M01_93Wrw_Ld8WL-X69Xm1mK_LngFPpdJgFVRMabSsQcMV6ySreQeogUuwVaM64PkDZJQay0QnLNRMSiUo1dW0uDn0bsP4tTMxtcFsx5Bim_vFTPKaZqY8MD0OpnXejimg6o03AYc837psz6mUQnIKPPP3J_gsbT6dOhm4PQpsDA5pE8dhl9zo4zH4B9x_Z0U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>204568471</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dignity in the gray zone: Indiana v Edwards</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Knoll, IV, James L</creator><creatorcontrib>Knoll, IV, James L</creatorcontrib><description>In a pronouncement that seemed tailor-made for Ferguson, the Court stated that "a self-representation right at trial will not 'affirm the dignity' of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel . . . and may undercut the most basic of the Constitution's criminal law objectives, providing a fair trial [page 2].\n At a time when all society is trying to mainstream the mentally impaired, the Court permits them to be deprived of a basic constitutional right-for their own good [page 11]." [...] the meaning of "dignity" itself is often very unclear.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0893-2905</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Monmouth Junction: Intellisphere, LLC</publisher><subject>Amicus curiae ; Constitutional amendments ; Court hearings & proceedings ; Due process of law ; Judges & magistrates ; Legislation ; Mental health care ; Murder ; Murders & murder attempts ; Trials</subject><ispartof>The Psychiatric times, 2008-11, Vol.25 (13), p.41</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2008 Intellisphere, LLC</rights><rights>Copyright United Business Media LLC Nov 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Knoll, IV, James L</creatorcontrib><title>Dignity in the gray zone: Indiana v Edwards</title><title>The Psychiatric times</title><description>In a pronouncement that seemed tailor-made for Ferguson, the Court stated that "a self-representation right at trial will not 'affirm the dignity' of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel . . . and may undercut the most basic of the Constitution's criminal law objectives, providing a fair trial [page 2].\n At a time when all society is trying to mainstream the mentally impaired, the Court permits them to be deprived of a basic constitutional right-for their own good [page 11]." [...] the meaning of "dignity" itself is often very unclear.</description><subject>Amicus curiae</subject><subject>Constitutional amendments</subject><subject>Court hearings & proceedings</subject><subject>Due process of law</subject><subject>Judges & magistrates</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Mental health care</subject><subject>Murder</subject><subject>Murders & murder attempts</subject><subject>Trials</subject><issn>0893-2905</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNptjj9PwzAUxDOARCl8B7OwoKBnx24ctqoUqFSJBeboxX9So-AU2wWVT4-lMnSobnhPp9-d7qyYgGyqkjUgLorLGD8AqKxnclLcPbreu7QnzpO0MaQPuCe_ozcPZOW1Q4_kmyz1DwYdr4pzi0M01_93Wrw_Ld8WL-X69Xm1mK_LngFPpdJgFVRMabSsQcMV6ySreQeogUuwVaM64PkDZJQay0QnLNRMSiUo1dW0uDn0bsP4tTMxtcFsx5Bim_vFTPKaZqY8MD0OpnXejimg6o03AYc837psz6mUQnIKPPP3J_gsbT6dOhm4PQpsDA5pE8dhl9zo4zH4B9x_Z0U</recordid><startdate>20081101</startdate><enddate>20081101</enddate><creator>Knoll, IV, James L</creator><general>Intellisphere, LLC</general><general>UBM LLC</general><scope>0-V</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20081101</creationdate><title>Dignity in the gray zone: Indiana v Edwards</title><author>Knoll, IV, James L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g204t-cd0fc032cdaf29ae4c2b8274b0ad0480f39cb044800a211ef25b5f07288c511d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Amicus curiae</topic><topic>Constitutional amendments</topic><topic>Court hearings & proceedings</topic><topic>Due process of law</topic><topic>Judges & magistrates</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Mental health care</topic><topic>Murder</topic><topic>Murders & murder attempts</topic><topic>Trials</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Knoll, IV, James L</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>The Psychiatric times</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Knoll, IV, James L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dignity in the gray zone: Indiana v Edwards</atitle><jtitle>The Psychiatric times</jtitle><date>2008-11-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>13</issue><spage>41</spage><pages>41-</pages><issn>0893-2905</issn><abstract>In a pronouncement that seemed tailor-made for Ferguson, the Court stated that "a self-representation right at trial will not 'affirm the dignity' of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel . . . and may undercut the most basic of the Constitution's criminal law objectives, providing a fair trial [page 2].\n At a time when all society is trying to mainstream the mentally impaired, the Court permits them to be deprived of a basic constitutional right-for their own good [page 11]." [...] the meaning of "dignity" itself is often very unclear.</abstract><cop>Monmouth Junction</cop><pub>Intellisphere, LLC</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0893-2905 |
ispartof | The Psychiatric times, 2008-11, Vol.25 (13), p.41 |
issn | 0893-2905 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_reports_204568471 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
subjects | Amicus curiae Constitutional amendments Court hearings & proceedings Due process of law Judges & magistrates Legislation Mental health care Murder Murders & murder attempts Trials |
title | Dignity in the gray zone: Indiana v Edwards |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T09%3A04%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dignity%20in%20the%20gray%20zone:%20Indiana%20v%20Edwards&rft.jtitle=The%20Psychiatric%20times&rft.au=Knoll,%20IV,%20James%20L&rft.date=2008-11-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=13&rft.spage=41&rft.pages=41-&rft.issn=0893-2905&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA188584104%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=204568471&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A188584104&rfr_iscdi=true |