Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Forensic psychology in criminal investigations
Importance of forensic psychology
Essays on insanity defense
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This paper answers the questions presented below:
Discuss the case of Arizona v. Clark (2006) and how it affected the insanity defense.
Describe the best interests of the child standard.
What innovations have states introduced to ease the trauma of testifying by a child who has been a victim of sexual abuse? What has been the Supreme Court’s reaction to different innovations?
Describe the role of the forensic psychologist when a trial attorney seeks a change of venue because of adverse pretrial publicity.
What is involved in a competency evaluation in a death penalty case?
1. Discuss the case of Arizona v. Clark (2006) and how it affected the insanity defense.
This case involved seventeen year old Eric Clark who shot and killed Officer Jeffrey Moritz who responded to a complaint early in the morning about a loud noise in the neighborhood, the noise was reported that it came from a certain pickup truck. When Officer Moritz ran upon the truck that was reported as making loud noise, he turn on his siren and emergency flashers for the truck to stop. When Officer Moritz walked up to the car he asked the driver which was Eric Clark to remain in the car, but as it seems Clark did not adhere to what Officer Moritz request of him, instead Clark shot Officer Moritz to death and flee the scene on foot, but backup was already requested by Officer Moritz. Although Clark fled the scene he was found and arrested later that day and his hands still had the residue of gun-powder on them. The gun that was used to kill Officer Moritz was found in a hat not too far from where they picked Clark up from (2009, pg. 113).
Clark went to court he was found guilty and was convicted of murder, he receive a sentence of life ...
... middle of paper ...
...n, the history of his parents are crucial as well and it should reflect back to the moment he/she was born. Any information that pertains to the defendant should be gathered. Along with everything else psychological tests should be ordered on the defendant. While these tests are being administered to the defendant to see if he/she is competent enough to for the death penalty there should be no rock left unturned so to speak. So when forensic psychologists performs competency evaluations they are looking for information that will either prevent the defendant from the death penalty or they will find information that will allow the defendant to be sentenced with the death penalty (2009, pgs. 364-365).
Reference:
Fulero, S., and Wrightsman, L. (2009). Forensic psychology. (3rd Ed.). Pgs. 113, 191-192,
205, 280, and 364-365. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
...92‘s Riggins v. Nevada, and 1990‘s Washington v. Harper. In Harper, the court determined that prison inmates could be forcibly medicated if they were a danger to themselves or others, and if the medication was medically appropriate. Riggins, in turn, decided that a defendant already on trial could be forcibly medicated to ensure his competency and allow for the proceedings to continue smoothly, in essence bulldozing one’s 14th amendment rights to “accomplish essential state policy” (Riggins, 1992, as cited in Breneman, 2004, p. 971). Riggins also proclaimed that forcible medication must be the least invasive means of treatment, and provide minimal side effects. Sell was clearly the child of these two rulings, fusing the competing interests of governmental prosecution with the liberty and safety of the defendant.
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government.
First, the first element of a crime is Mens rea. “The mental element is known as the mens rea, or mental state, of the defendant.” (Hames & Ekern, 2009) The prosecution lawyers try to prove if the defendant has knowledge of the crime. What was the defendant’s mental state? Were they aware of the effect of the crime, did the defendant plan the crime, o...
The criminal justice system takes on a pivotal role in pursuing and preventing crimes in society. When a suspect is caught and then faced with charges for a violent crime, they legally have the right to a fair trial. In order for a criminal proceeding to successfully take place, the defendant must be fully aware of their surroundings, have a basic understanding of court procedures, as well as being capable of defending their one case. Competency to stand trial (CST) is essential for maintaining fairness in the courtroom and producing a just verdict. However, if a defendant is unable to understand legal proceedings due to mental illness or impairment, they must be thoroughly assessed and evaluated before declared incompetent to stand trial. Carrying out a case with a defendant who lacks mental capacity causes numerous issues because the individual is incapable of supplying their lawyers with information regarding their crime or any of the witness testimonies at trial. Lack of comprehensible communication between a defendant and attorney forces an ineffective defense in the case. Mental disturbances in the defendant that may cause disorderly conduct in the court room are considered disruptive and weaken the authority of the legal system. Supreme Court cases that have dealt with competency to stand trial issues over the years have made significant rulings, which have stressed the importance of identifying whether or not a defendant is in fact incompetent.
Contentions of the Parties: The State Supreme Court acted on the grounds that Mr. Hendricks’ condition appeared to be substantial enough to satisfy the due process requirement that involuntary civil commitments must be predicted on a mental illness finding. Hendricks appealed and argued that his commitment violated his due process rights, as well as his protection against double jeopardy
Francis Bacon helped to pioneer the new science steering people away from Aristotelian teachings. He helped to bring the scientific method to a place of learning from observation and experimentation. He felt that science should be judged by the usefulness of the results (Greenwood, 2009). Bacon projected that many great things might come out of this empirical approach, but what has ensued in the centuries that followed, Bacon and others might not have predicted.
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
“Modern life had become too complex for ordinary householders to get along with the help of experts.” During the trial, Clarence Darrow saw his defense as a “vehicle for affecting the public,” one that which had little opportunity of winning, but in due course tooks it’s affect among those who heard his argument. Mr. Darrow, in a risky move, brought in outside experts to testify which, “was not only an affront to local pride but a relatively risky new procedure in law.” The times changing, with technology and scientology among other things, saw the need for the everyday person to have his/her life explained to them by an expert. The case changed a lot of the purpose of a normal person being able to consider complex thoughts and discriminate logical possibilities without a broken down explanation.
The insanity defense attempts to answer these questions. “[It] is one of a number of defenses available to individuals who have committed an act which the la has declared criminal. An individual who commits such an act may be found not criminally responsible for the act with a successful plea of insanity” (Fersch). Although insanity was considered since ancient Rome, it was first used as a defense in 1724, where the defendant was expected to be speared by trial. Since then, it has been modified with different rules and parameters and is currently available in 46 states (Kansas, Montana, Idaho, and Utah have eliminated it from their jurisdiction (Turco)). However, it is not a very common defense. “The insanity defense is raised in about 1% of all felony cases, and the jury rules not guilty by reason of insanity in about 25% of these cases. Recent studies have also shown that agreement between clinicians is high (about 79%) and that only a small minority of ...
Cotj, Lawerence. “The Facts Behind the Angela Davis Case.” Human Events 17 June 1972: 447. Web
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...
There are two theories that justify punishment: retributivism according to which punishment ensures that justice is done, and utilitarianism which justifies punishment because it prevents further harm being done. The essence of defences is that those who do not freely choose to commit an offence should not be punished, especially in those cases where the defendant's actions are involuntary. All three of these defences concern mental abnormalities. Diminished responsibility is a partial statutory defence and a partial excuse. Insanity and automatism are excuses and defences of failure of proof. While automatism and diminished responsibility can only be raised by the defendant, insanity can be raised by the defence or the prosecution. It can be raised by the prosecution when the defendant pleads diminished responsibility or automatism. The defendant may also appeal against the insanity verdict. With insanity and diminished responsibility, the burden of proof is on the defendant. With automatism the burden of proof is on the prosecution and they must negate an automatism claim beyond reasonable doubt.
Forensic Psychiatry has to do with assessing and treating of mentally disordered people who have violated the law. This is a profession which must balance between law and mental disorders/illnesses. Forensic Psychiatrists must have an adept understanding of the legal system as they will be working closely with it. They work closely with the legal system, as Forensic Psychiatrists can provide expert testimony in a court trial, determine and advise on the competency of an individual’s ability to stand trial, aid in solving criminal cases, provide sentencing recommendation, and treat mental disorders or illness in individuals who have taken part in criminal actions. There patients are almost always in some way legally restricted, often seeing
Psychologists are very significant fundamentals of a legal system because of roles that they play. Psychologists typically play these roles like instructing attorneys on different cases, they provide extensive investigations, they consult on court cases, and jury selection. They also testify as an expert witnesses and evaluate trials. Some psychologists don’t need to be present to play a role in the courtroom setting. They can just be called on to do testing on individuals. Psychologists can be often used by police, corrections, and courts. .Mainly psychologist that are involved in criminal cases are a huge influence over the verdict in court trials. Police use psychologists for some things such as crime scenes to determine what a person was doing or thinking before death.