It has long been deemed necessary that a defendant be able to witness, understand and participate in the legal process. Bringing to trial people who are so impaired that they are unable to assist in their defense or are unaware of the nature and purpose of the proceedings against them is seen as calling into question both the value of the legal process and the notions of fairness. An underlying mental disorder may prevent a defendant from contesting the charges against them or providing important facts about their case. In Dusky V United States (1960), the Supreme Court held that defendants must possess "sufficient present capacity to consult with their counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding (and to have a) rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him ". ". The words “sufficient” capacity and “reasonable” understanding refer to the abilities of the accused, which need not be perfect. The reference to “current” capacity makes it clear that we should only consider the capacity of the accused at the present time and during the future trial. A simple lack of knowledge of court procedures does not make someone incompetent to stand trial. However, more than just understanding legal processes is necessary, a defendant must have the ability to appreciate and consider the facts of the case. Competence is ultimately decided by the judge; however, a mental health professional will express their professional opinion which the judge will then take into consideration. Those found incompetent to stand trial are committed to a psychiatric facility until they regain competency. There are some cases where it is possible to involuntarily medicate a person if it makes them ...... middle of paper ...... making them competent to stand trial without the government proving that the administration of medication is appropriate. “that the drugs are very likely to render the accused fit to stand trial; and that less intrusive non-drug alternatives would likely be ineffective in achieving the same goal” (APA, United States v. Gomes). The APA also took a position in Sell v US (2003), providing similar information with a few additional points. In addition to those previously stated, the APA also stated that the benefits of the medications outweigh the possible side effects of the medication. If the drug has side effects, the government must demonstrate that those side effects will not interfere with the defendant's ability to defend themselves. The United States Supreme Court agreed with the APA and made these four points mandatory in order to involuntarily medicate a defendant..