Forensic reports inform and influence the outcome of legal proceedings. The forensic psychologist utilize the following factor when preparing a written report: (a) who requested the report; (b) who will be reading the report, and (c) what information is needed to be reported. With this being said, forensic reports need to include clarity, straightforwardness, as well as being brief (Conroy, 2006). According to Jackson (2008) forensic psychologist report must reflect accuracy. Therefore, one must acknowledge and disclose discrepancy of the assessment tool, as well as the validity and reliability of the report. When putting statements in a report, the forensic psychologist must identify the statement is fact, inference, or professional opinion. This goes back to the role of the forensic psychologist who is to remain objective. Last the report should not include jargon or utilize clinical terminology (Jackson, 2008). The purpose of this paper is to identify ethical dilemma in report writing. …show more content…
In this case study, it is clear the psychologist is beginning to form some bias towards the defendant evidence by: the psychologist concludes the defendant has severe mental health diagnosis. However, he understands the criminal responsibility of his actions. Additionally, reviewing his results from the evaluation psychology mentions individual that are impaired can recall nine out of 16 items. With this being said, this is an example of fundamental attribution error. The psychologist is comparing the behavior of defendant to previous evaluations; as a result the psychologist is over attributing the defendant’s behaviors (Bush et al., 2006). The psychologist is displaying unfair discrimination based upon disability (EPPCC 3.01). Additionally, the psychologist needs to avoid incomplete or inaccurate which may facts (SPFC
...merican Psychological Association. The APA submits an arguments that an accurate proceeding requires an adversary hearing, the assistance of mental health professionals, and decision makers to specify in writing the factors relied upon making decision.
Therefore, a defendant, the court or the attorney general can order a hearing on motion. Before the date of the hearing of the case, the court may order a psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the defendant. Pursuant to the provisions of section 4247, psychologists or psychiatrists report the findings to the court. The court has the permission to request a deadline for the evaluation so that it can insure the promptness of the examination. The court can also request the experts who carried out the evaluation, to specify observations made of the defendant, the type of examination carried out and the opinion of the experts on the competency
Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, therefore it should not be used in the criminal justice system. Discuss.
...ng experts to identify mental health symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, and identifying if any instances of malingering are present. Evaluating a defendant is essential in understanding whether or not they are capable of following legal proceedings. If an individual is in fact found incompetent, attempts to restore competency are performed through treatments with medication or mental training about legal information that is vital for them to know in their case. It is imperative to acknowledge competency to stand trial cases in the legal system to not only ensure fairness in the courtroom, but offer mentally ill defendants an opportunity to have a lawful trial depending on their psychological state.
Player: case report and emerging medicolegal practice questions. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 6(1), 40-46. doi:10.1111/j.1939-3938.2009.01064.x
Roesch, R., Zapf, P. A., & Hart, S. D. (2010). Forensic psychology and law. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
Therefore, the criminal justice system relies on other nonscientific means that are not accepted or clear. Many of forensic methods have implemented in research when looking for evidence, but the methods that are not scientific and have little or anything to do with science. The result of false evidence by other means leads to false testimony by a forensic analyst. Another issue with forensic errors is that it is a challenge to find a defense expert (Giannelli, 2011). Defense experts are required to help the defense attorneys defend and breakdown all of the doubts in the prosecutors scientific findings in criminal cases. Scientific information is integral in a criminal prosecution, and a defense attorney needs to have an expert to assist he/she in discrediting the prosecution (Giannelli,
Overall, though, I believe that Stein is the closest scholar here-mentioned to have accounted for the explanation behind these controversies. The main mistake made by many modern scholars lies in the planning and the research – too much effort is spent on seeking to explain this opposition between the Proculians and the Sabinians in terms of two internally coherent law schools which differ entirely and have held controversies stemming from a specific occurrence. I have personally, as a student of the Roman law, found it difficult in reading the sources and differing theories from scholars to do just this – because, as Scarano Ussani stated, nowhere, in the mass of research that has been done, have any definitive results been reached. As afore-mentioned, I ruled out the political explanation for the purpose of answering this question, and the social explanation does not add a great deal to the debate for me. The theories supporting the social standpoint as addressed in this essay are among the worst for choosing to ignore many of the hard facts in order to make their theory fit better. This leaves only the philosophical and methodological explanations. The philosophical explanation is a reasonably sound one, although as explored above, I do believe that its significance has been largely exaggerated. There is no doubt over the fact that philosophy has played an influential role - even if you only look at Gaius’ ius gentium which contains a certain level of Stoic influence, but as mentioned above there are major differences which have been overlooked slightly in those arguments. The methodological explanation is another seemingly logical one, and the most reliable of all theorems explored in this essay, in my opinion, as it i...
Forensic evidence can provide just outcomes in criminal matters. However, it is not yet an exact science as it can be flawed. It can be misrepresented through the reliability of the evidence, through nonstandard guidelines, and through public perception. Forensic science can be dangerously faulty without focus on the ‘science’ aspect. It can at times be just matching patterns based on an individual’s interpretations. This can lead to a miscarriage of justice and forever alter a person’s life due to a perceived “grey area” (Merritt C, 2010) resulting in a loss of confidence in the reliability of forensic evidence.
This paper is intended to examine ethical issues in Criminological research and criminal justice. This paper will analyze the multitude of ethical concerns, as well as discuss the confidentiality requirements as it pertains to criminological research.
Forensic Psychology, which is occasionally referred to as Legal Psychology, originally made its debut in the late 1800’s. A Harvard Professor, Professor Munsterberg, introduced the idea of psychology and law with his book, On the Witness Stand in 1908. Since the inception of the idea of psychology and law there have been proponents, as well as though that have spoken against the theories proposed by Munsterberg’s, along with other scientists, theorists, and psychologists that believed that Forensic Psychology had no standing to be linked to topics of law. This literature review will attempt to identify scholarly articles that trace the origins and the movement that led to Forensics Psychology becoming a specialty within the field of psychology. I will also attempt to explain What is Forensic Psychology as well as the part it plays within the legal system.
Forensic science is specialized in finding proof and evidence to analyze and search for clues. When crimes are done, criminals frequently leave behind evidence at the crime scene. Crime Investigators (AKA- CSIs) and Medical Examiners (MEs) the inspect the evidence left at the crime scene for leads to who did what. They try and rebuild the scene using the evidence and proof that they have. Forensic science has played a great role in finding evidence for crimes in history because it helps find the person who did wrong, the perpetrator, and it helps bring justice to the case. Forensics now are better than before because technological advances like DNA testing has been made, which takes forensics to a whole new level.
... The source of the defendant’s mental abnormality is the greatest point of distinction between all of the defendants. Whether the abnormality is internal, external or a diagnosed medical condition will play a significant role in which defence can be used. As defences, they are all used for a similar reason, and that is to eliminate or reduce liability for criminal offences.
Gary B. Melton, John Petrila, Norman G. Poythress, Psychological Evaluations for the Court: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers, Guilford Publications, 3rd edition 2007
Forensic Science is a application of a natural science which draws upon the principle and methods of all traditional science such as physics, chemistry , biology and mathematics in legal system. Forensic science include forensic medicine, odontology, anthropology, psychiatry, forensic toxicology, forensic radiology, forensic engineering.