Justice is not a medical diagnosis. Yet, every time a high-profile tragedy hits the headlines—like the recent case of a teenager charged with a paddleboarder’s death—the entire legal apparatus grinds to a halt to worship at the altar of "competency."
The media treats a competency ruling like a binary switch: On or Off. Sane or Insane. Ready or Not. This isn't just a simplification; it is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law and the human mind actually intersect. We are obsessed with the wrong question. We ask if a defendant "understands" the charges, but we ignore whether the system itself is capable of processing the answer. Also making headlines in related news: The Anatomy of Executive Power and the War Powers Deadline.
The Myth of the Objective Evaluation
When a judge deems a teenager competent to stand trial, the public sighs in relief. They think it means the kid is "normal" or "faking it."
That is a lie. Further insights into this topic are covered by NBC News.
Competency is the lowest bar in the American legal system. To be competent, you don't need to be rational. You don't need to be mentally healthy. You just need to have a "factual and rational understanding" of the proceedings and the ability to consult with your lawyer.
I have sat in rooms with forensic evaluators who check these boxes like they’re ordering groceries.
- Does the defendant know who the judge is? Yes.
- Does he know what a plea deal is? Yes.
- Can he sit still for twenty minutes? Yes.
Congratulations, you're fit for trial.
This "lazy consensus" ignores the neurological reality of the adolescent brain. Science tells us that the prefrontal cortex—the part of the brain responsible for impulse control and long-term consequences—isn't fully cooked until the mid-twenties. By applying an adult standard of competency to a teenager, we aren't upholding the law; we are performing a legal fiction. We are pretending that a biological child has the executive function of an adult because it's the only way to keep the assembly line moving.
The False Comfort of "Restoration"
What happens when they aren't competent? The court orders "competency restoration."
This is the industry's dirtiest secret. Restoration isn't therapy. It isn't healing. It is a crash course in legal terminology. We take individuals with profound cognitive deficits or severe psychosis and we drill them on the roles of the courtroom staff until they can parrot back the answers.
Imagine trying to "restore" a broken leg by teaching the patient the Latin names for the bones. You haven't fixed the leg; you’ve just made the patient better at talking about it.
When we "restore" a teenager to competency, we are often just grooming them to participate in their own conviction. We spend months—sometimes years—in state hospitals, costing taxpayers thousands of dollars a day, just to get a "Yes" answer to the question: "What does the prosecutor do?"
If the goal was actual public safety, that money would be in early intervention. Instead, we spend it on the backend to ensure the theater of the courtroom has all its actors ready for their cues.
The Injustice of the Middle Ground
The biggest tragedy in these cases isn't the ruling; it's the people who fall through the cracks.
The legal system is built for two types of people: the "completely normal" and the "completely disconnected." If you are a teenager with a borderline IQ, a history of trauma, and a brain that hasn't finished developing, you occupy a gray zone that the law refuses to acknowledge.
You aren't "insane" enough for a psychiatric defense, but you aren't "functional" enough to actually participate in a high-stakes defense.
The "People Also Ask" sections of the internet want to know: Can a minor be tried as an adult if they have mental health issues?
The brutal answer is yes, and they usually are. The system views mental health as a mitigating factor during sentencing, not a barrier to the trial itself. This is a massive tactical error. By the time you get to sentencing, the damage is done. The "truth" has been established by a process the defendant likely didn't fully grasp.
Why We Need to Dismantle the "Competency" Industry
I’ve seen the state spend more money on expert witnesses arguing over a defendant's IQ than they ever spent on that defendant's education or social services.
We have created a self-sustaining ecosystem of "experts" who profit from the delay. Every time a competency hearing is pushed back, the billable hours climb. Every time a new evaluation is ordered, the "competency landscape" (to use a term the bureaucrats love) gets more cluttered and less clear.
We need to stop pretending that a 15-minute interview with a state-appointed psychologist can determine if a traumatized kid is "ready" for a trial that will determine the rest of his life.
A Radical Alternative
Instead of the binary "Competent/Incompetent" framework, we should move toward a tiered participation model.
- Functional Assessment: Move away from "Do you know what a judge is?" to "Can you weigh the risks of a plea deal against a jury trial?"
- Mandatory Guardianship: If a defendant is under 21 and shows any cognitive impairment, an independent legal guardian (not just a lawyer) should have veto power over major legal decisions.
- Abolish "Restoration" for Minors: If a child isn't competent at the time of the crime or the trial due to developmental delays, they belong in a clinical setting, not a legal one. Period.
The current system is a "game-changer" only for the people getting paid to run the clock. For the victims, it provides a false sense of closure. For the defendants, it provides a hollow version of "due process" that is anything but.
The Cost of the Status Quo
The "pro-justice" crowd argues that making competency harder to prove would let criminals walk free. That is a coward’s argument.
True justice requires a defendant who can actually stand. If the person in the chair is a shell of a human, or a child who doesn't understand why the room is looking at him, the trial isn't a search for truth. It’s a ritual sacrifice.
We are terrified of admitting that some people are too broken, or too young, for the blunt instrument of the criminal justice system. So we hide behind "competent to stand trial" rulings. We use medical jargon to mask moral failures.
The teenager in this case may very well be "competent" by the letter of the law. But if you think that means the system is working, you aren't paying attention. You’re just relieved that the machine is moving again.
Stop looking for "sanity" in a process that is fundamentally irrational. The competency ruling isn't the end of the story; it’s the evidence that we’ve given up on actually understanding the human mind in favor of checking a box.
The courtroom isn't a hospital, and a judge's gavel isn't a magic wand. Calling a child "competent" doesn't make him an adult, and it certainly doesn't make the trial fair. It just makes it legal.
And in this country, we have a long, dark history of making terrible things legal just to keep the peace.
