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.
Recommended: forensic psychology in criminal investigations
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.
Fulero, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2009). Forensic psychology. (3rd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
During the criminal proceeding of the Andrea trial, there were several mental health professionals that were call by the defense to testify in the first trial, including several of her treating psychiatrists. In the Yates trial, both defense and prosecution experts agreed on three issues, Yates suffered from a mental disease, she knew that her conduct was against the law and that a subjective moral wrongfulness issue had to be considered (Resnick P,2007).
Every once in awhile, a case comes about in which the defendant confesses to a crime, but the defense tries to argue that at the time the defendant was not sane. This case is no different; the court knows the defendant is guilty the only aspect they are unsure about is the punishment this murderer should receive. The State is pushing for a jail sentence and strongly believes that the defendant was sane at the time of the murder. It is nearly impossible for the defense to prove their evidence burden of 51%. The State claims that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time of the murder. By using excessive exaggeration, premeditation and motive, the Prosecution will prove that the defendant knew exactly what he was doing and how wrong it was.
Interest and debate have greatly increased over the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) plea since the 1970s. The legal definition of insanity as understood by Dunn, Cowan, and Downs (2006) is, “a person is thought insane if he or she is incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.” There are several investigations needed in the area of NGRIs plea, especially in the area of gender. Research on gender is needed because of its potential to influence the presentation and formation of the rule of law. Throughout many cultures the general assumption is that men are significantly more aggressive than women, whereas women often are characterized by passive and communal traits (Yourstone, 2007 ). Public opinion on insanity cases is often viewed negatively. Furthermore, the public often believe that insanity defendants go free after they are found NGRI. However, according to Dunn et al., (2006), “the NGRI sits at the low end of the ultimate outcome measure, whereas the death penalty sits at the high end.” The public in general view a mentally ill person as dangerous. The main reason for this is the media’s inaccurate perceptions of the mentally ill as violent (Breheney, 2007). Another problem is the public generally overestimates the insanity defense success rate. According to Breheney et al., (2007), “There are nine insanity pleas for every 1,000 felony cases of which 26% (about two) are successful.” However, the argument has been that insanity defenses are used as a means of escaping severe penalties in the most serious of crimes. Several questions arise from this topic in both psychology and law. It is important f...
15) Grinfeld, M. J. "Executing the Mentally Ill: Who is Really Insane?" Psychiatric Times. Vol. XV, Issue 5. May, 1998. , Discussion of the legal aspects of criminal insanity and violence research.
“Not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) has often perplexed even the most stringent of legal and psychiatric professionals for centuries. Moreover, it has transcended into the pop culture, as a “loophole”for the criminal society. However, the insanity defense is only used in less than 1% of criminal cases, and used successfully in only 10-25% of those cases (Torry and Billick, 2010). In order to successfully be acquitted by reason of insanity, the legal team, paired with psychiatric professionals, must prove that the defendant is not legally responsible for the crime, despite the evidence that they executed the crime. They must also prove that the defendant, was or is currently suffering from a mental disorder, and that the defendant have/had a impaired logical control of their actions (Smith, 2011). According to Torry and Billick (2010), “A criminal act must have two components: evil intent (mens rea, literally “guilt mind”) and action (actus reus, literally “guilty act”)” (p.225), thus the defendant must prove that he/she did not have “mens rea” or “actus reus.” Equally important to note, the act itself must be voluntary and conscious. The the majority of the psychological and judicial court system have a reluctance to hold defendants who lack the capability needed to understand “right from wrong” (Torry and Billick, 2010). It has been proven that over the course of many years, the NGRI have been difficult to apply. During the early 1980’s, many states modernized their NGRI defense and even abolished the defense altogether. Instead of allowing the the “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense, many states have established a verdict of “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) (Smith, 2011). In order to make sure that individuals w...
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.
In the United States, trials in which a defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity represent 1% of all the criminal cases, and the defense is lawfully verified in only 25% of these cases (Giannetakis, 2011). The not guilty by reason of insanity plea, or NGRI, is a legal defense a defendant might use to argue that he or she was not guilty of a crime because of insanity (Butcher, Hooley, & Mineka, 2014). The effort to define insanity in a legal sense begins in 1843 and carries on until 1984. Starting with “The M’Naghten Rule” or the “knowing right from wrong” rule because people are presumed to be stable ,but it can be exposed that at the time of the act they were committing, they were struggling under such a flaw of reason (from disease of the mind) that they did not know the nature and quality of the act they were committing or, if they did know they were committing the act, they did not know that what they were doing was wrong (Butcher, et. al, 2014). Secondly there was the Irresistible Impulse Rule in 1887, which suggests that the defendants might not be accountable for their acts, even when they knew that what they were doing was wrong ( according to the M’Naghten rule)- if they had lost the control to choose from right and wrong. That is, they could not dodge doing the act in question because they were compelled beyond their will to commit the act. Moving on to 1954, Judge David Bazelon of the U.S. Court of Appeals, was not confident in the prior precedents permissible for an adequate submission of established scientific knowledge of mental illness ,and recommended a test that would be based on this knowledge. Under this rule, which is often referred to as the “product test” (Durham Rule), the accused is not illegitim...
" Mental Illness and the Death Penalty." American Civil Liberties Union. May 5, 2009. Web. 04
Yoong, Gideon. "Top 10 Most Notorious Insanity Defense Cases." Listverse. (2012): n. page. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. .
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.
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...
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.
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