Two ProsecutionsTwo Different Results

In 2002, Brian David Mitchell and his accomplice and wife, Wanda Barzee, kidnapped fourteen-year-old Elizabeth Smart from her home. Mitchell, a so-called street preacher, and Barzee held Smart captive for nine months, tethering her to a metal cable, subjecting her to daily rapes, and forcing her to ingest alcohol and drugs. Jennifer Dobner, "Elizabeth Smart Kidnapper Convicted, Jury Rejects Insanity Defense," theChristian Science Monitorwebsite, accessed December 11, 2010,http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/1210/Elizabeth-Smart-kidnapper-convicted-jury-rejects-insanity-defense. At one point, they transported Smart across state lines to California. Mitchell was put on trial for kidnapping and sexual assault in the state of Utah. The trial court found Mitchell incompetent to stand trial, and did not make a ruling forcing him to submit to medication to remedy the incompetency.Unlike Mitchell, Barzee was involuntarily medicated pursuant to a state court order (by the same judge that heard Mitchell's incompetency claim), and pleaded guilty to federal and state kidnapping, sexual assault, and illegal transportation of a minor for sex, receiving two fifteen-year sentences, to be served concurrently. Thefederalgovernment also instituted a prosecution against Mitchell for kidnapping and taking Smart across state lines for sex. The US District Court judge held a competency hearing and found that Mitchell wascompetentto stand trial. Ben Winslow, "Mitchell Ruled Competent to Stand Trial for Kidnapping Elizabeth Smart," Fox13now.com website, accessed December 11, 2010,www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-mitchell-competent-trial-kidnapping-smart,0,4261562.story. Mitchell pleaded not guilty by reason ofinsanity. Throughout the trial, Mitchell was often removed from the courtroom for loudly singing Christmas carols and hymns. A serious of experts testified regarding Mitchell's psychological ailments, including a rare delusional disorder, schizophrenia, pedophilia, and antisocial personality disorder. Nonetheless, the juryrejectedthe insanity defense and convicted Mitchell of kidnapping and transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of illegal sex. Elizabeth Smart Kidnapper Convicted, Jury Rejects Insanity Defense," theChristian Science Monitorwebsite, accessed December 11, 2010,http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/1210/Elizabeth-Smart-kidnapper-convicted-jury-rejects-insanity-defense.

• What is the purpose of putting Mitchell on trial rather than delaying the trial for mental incompetency? Is this purposeethical?

How did the courts' handling of Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee differ in terms of competency and the use of involuntary medication, and what legal implications arise from these differences? In your response, discuss the significance of competency in criminal trials and the impact of forced medication on a defendant's rights and ability to participate in their defense.

Despite expert testimony regarding Brian David Mitchell's psychological conditions, the jury rejected his insanity defense. Based on the facts of the case, why do you think the jury reached this conclusion, and what does this suggest about the application of the insanity defense in the U.S. legal system? Consider the role of expert testimony, public perception of mental illness, and the legal standards used to determine insanity in your answer.