THE OPINIONS OF JUSTICE HOLMES AND JUSTICE BLACKSTONE REGARDING JUDICIAL TREATMENT OF MENTALLY DISTURBED DEFENDANTS ARE PRESENTED AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF CONFLICTING VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT OF COMPETENCY WHICH HAVE PREVAILED AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN HISTORY. BLACKSTONE FELT THAT THE 'MADMAN' MAY NOT BE CHARGED OR CONVICTED, WHILE HOLMES HELD THAT HE MAY NOT BE PUNISHED. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY HAVE SHOWN THAT A FINE LINE EXISTS BETWEEN MENTAL INCAPACITY AND NORMALCY AND THAT MENTAL ABERRATIONS NEED NOT BE PERMANENT. THE AUTHORS FEEL INSANITY SHOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A DEFENSE BARRING CONVICTION FOR CRIME AND THAT INCAPACITY SHOULD NOT ABSOLUTELY BAR TRIAL FOR CRIME. THE LACK OF A TRIAL IN INCOMPETENCY OR INSANITY CASES LEADS TO A SERIOUS CONFUSION OF THE ISSUES: INDIVIDUALS ARE LABELED 'DANGEROUS,' CONFINED, AND CONDEMNED WHEN IT NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT THE ACTS CHARGED WERE COMMITTED BY THEM. AVOIDING THE TRIAL OF AN INCOMPETENT WHILE SUBJECTING HIM TO A DE FACTO PUNISHMENT BY INCARCERATION IN A MENTAL INSTITUTION MAKES A MOCKERY OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. A BETTER WAY MUST BE FOUND TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PSYCHOPATHS, WHO SHOULD NOT STAND TRIAL, AND SOCIOPATHS, WHO SHOULD. THE ONLY FIXED RULE IS THAT DUE PROCESS IS REQUIRED WHILE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY IS BEING SAFEGUARDED.