Brian David Mitchell’s kidnapping trial dragged on for years because Utah found him incompetent to stand trial. The feds stepped in and succeeded where Utah failed. They found him competent to stand trial and won a conviction. 

That leaves us with a strange paradox: a man who, on one hand, is mentally incompetent to stand trial, and on the other hand, is sane enough to be branded a sex offender and locked up in prison. 

How can someone be mentally incompetent and “sane” at the same time?

Simple.

Competency = ability to communicate with attorney and understand the charges, both factually and rationally.

Insanity = not knowing or understanding the consequences of one’s actions at the time a crime was committed.

Oversimplified, but the basic gist.

And: 

Competency = the time of the trial.

Insanity = the time of the crime.

They are separate legal standards and mean different things. 

So why did the feds find Mitchell competent, while Utah did not? 

This article from the Deseret News explains how the feds learned from the state’s mistakes. Essentially, they had the power and privilege of hindsight. 

Or does it go back to the Catch-22 in which many Utahans felt trapped?