> > When a person can respond consistently to questions about what is

> > going on around him and what he wants then he is competent, when he
> > can't do this he isn't competent.
>
> Who would pose the questions and judge the answers?

This question is ill-posed in at least two separate ways.

(1) We don't currently do this because nobody in our legal system cares about
the answer and so nobody bothers to ask. Instead we have a sham procedure
involving psychiarists who give pseudoscientific "arguments" for allowing a
person to have a trial or treating him against his will without bothering with a
trial.

(2) If we did, then there would be some procedure for doing it and so the
question would be about as useful as the question: "Who determines whether a
person is prosecuted for a crime of which they have been accused?" A person may
be found guilty or acquitted in many different ways. If he confesses guilt the
accused will be convicted. If the trial goes ahead without any problems then he
may be found guilty or not guilty by a jury. If the police or the prosecutor
mess up badly enough the case may be dismissed by the judge. There might be a
mistrial for some other reason, like jury tampering. And so on and so forth. So
no single person makes the decision: all of the people involved participate in a
process whose outcome they do not control.

Alan

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com