Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Explain the nature of psychology
Personality disorders case study
Case study about mental disorders
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Explain the nature of psychology
Malingering is to make believe that a person is sick due to a physical or mental illness to avoid unpleasable consequences while denial is an act to oppress reality and deny its existence. In criminal cases, many suspects have tried to perform both of these strategies in order to receive a smaller sentence, but in fact, the person either spends a greater amount in a mental health institution or prison. Kenneth Bianchi, in a five-month period between 1977 and 1978, rapped and strangled several young women and denied any involvement in the murders he committed. Bianchi reported under hypnosis that his alter ego committed those crimes. Apparently at the end of his hypnosis session, he had about five separate personality disorders. His lawyers …show more content…
Moreover, those found not guilty for reason insanity (NGRI) have to spend about the same time in mental health hospitals. Malingering is to exaggerate or feign illness to escape work. Research shows that defendants who are evaluated for competency to stand trial and are charged with a murder trial are more likely to malinger. It is logical that a defendant would want to deliberate feigning and exaggeration of physical or psychological symptoms in order to avoid a negative outcome. A defendant’s competency to stand trial does not exclude them from being sentenced, either way, if incompetent, they are sent to be hospitalized in a mental institution. In most cases, defendants are competent to stand trial, whereas a little over ten percent are incompetent. If a defendant purposely caused the murder of another person, but suffers from schizophrenia, then they might be incompetent to stand trial. They would be hospitalized in a secure facility in the attempt to return them to competency. On the other hand, if an individual is not restorable to competency, then they would be …show more content…
A way I can relate malingering into my life is in my workplace. There are many people who swarm the streets of Soho for shopping, sightseeing etc. I work at a store where it gets quite busy on the weekends. I remember I was working the closing shift and there was still a good amount of people in the store. I was closing down a section of the store so I could be out of work at a reasonable time. With half an hour left before the store officially closes, I told my manager I was going to the restroom. Ten minutes later, after I get back to my section from the restroom, it was like there was a sale going on in my section. The folded pants and blouses were a messy pile, I found some hanged shirts on the floor and it was a total mess. In my mind, I was thinking no way in hell am I going to fix this section again. I will definitely leave this place at one in the morning. I just thought I will pretend I got sick for my lunch and threw up in the restroom. I went ahead to my manager with a disgust and ill face with one hand on my stomach telling her I did not feel well at all. I lied, telling her I threw up in the restroom and I felt weak. She said it was fine if I left earlier, but one of my co workers noticed that I was just trying to go home early. The person told my manager and she made me work the closing shift for a whole week after that. I was just glad that I did not have to clean up
For those that don’t know, the insanity plea, as defined by Cornell Law, is based on the fact that a person accused of a crime can acknowledge that he/she committed the crime, but argue that he/she is not responsible for it because of his or her mental illness, by pleading “not guilty by reason of insanity”. This first became a problem in 1843. Daniel M’Naughten was trialed for shooting the secretary of the Prime Minister in attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister himself. It was said that M’Naughten thought the Prime Minister was the person behind all his personal and financial problems. The jury ruled him “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The reason for the verdict was M’Naughten...
Seltzer, T., 2005, ‘Mental health courts – A misguided attempt to address the criminal justice system’s unfair treatment of people with mental illnesses’, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 570-586.
...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.
Lamb, H. R. (2004). Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system: Some perspectives. Psychiatric Quarterly, 108-126.
The issue of executing mentally ill criminals has been widely debated among the public. They debate on whether it is right or wrong to execute a person who does not possess the capacity to think correctly. The mental illness is a disease that destroys a person’s memory, emotion, and prevent one or more function of the mind running properly. The disease affects the way a person thinks, feels, behaves and relates to others.When a person is severely mentally ill, his/ her ability to appreciate reality lack so they aspire to do stuff that is meaningless. The sickness is triggered by an amalgamation of genetic, and environmental factors not a personal imperfection. On the death penalty website, Scott Panetti who killed his mother in-law and father-in-law reports that since 1983, over 60 people with mental illness or retardation have been executed in the United States (Panetti). The American Civil Liberties Union says that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who suffered from an earnest mental illness (ACLU).Some people apply the term crazy or mad to describe a person who suffers from astringent psychological disorders because a mad person look different than a mundane human being. The time has come for us to accept the fact that executing mentally ill offenders is not beneficial to society for many reasons. Although some mentally ill criminals have violated the law, we need to sustain a federal law that mentally ill criminals should not be put to death.
Malingering must be understood to grasp the difference between it and a more worry- some disorder: Factitious Disorder. Malingering, which is not considered a psychological disorder, is commonly identified, and termed as sufferers that want to gain something financial from the outcome of falsifying an illness. Factitious Disorder is often misdiagnosed and overlooked, is defined as the intentional action of misrepresenting an illness and there is no obvious benefit except for having an inner need to only calling attention to oneself and gaining emotional sympathy.
According to the article” The Durham rule was eventually rejected by the federal courts, because it cast too broad a net. Alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, and drug addicts had successfully used the defense to defeat a wide variety of crimes,”(Insanity) this shows how people would abuse the insanity defense to get out of a crime. There was this case where John Hinckley schizophrenia, and was charged of assault because he beat a stranger in the bus for no reason. John was explaining he was hearing voices that he could not control. He knew what he did was wrong, but his impulse was uncontrollable, and because of his problem he was not guilty.
... or by giving them written tests. Some psychiatrists call mental diseases a myth. The insanity defense would require both a mental disease and a relationship between the illness and the criminal behavior, neither of which could be scientifically proven. Of the criminals both acquitted and convicted using the insanity defense, a good number have shown conclusive evidence of recidivism. Many dangerous persons are allowed to return to the streets and many non-dangerous persons are forced into facilities due to an insanity plea adding further confusion and injustice within both the legal and medical systems. The insanity defense is impossible to maintain on the foundation of rules such as the M'Naghten Rule, and the relationship between law and psychiatry must be reinstated on a more scientific level, based on the neurological work now going on in the brain sciences.
This paper will view some of the characteristics and violent behavior risk factors associated with a depressed or mentally ill person. It will also, compare characteristic that characterize a person suffering form depression or a person that is mentally ill. This paper will discuss treatment or punishment debated concerning depression and mental illness in the justice system. Existing studies will be used to help in the study of depression and mental illness from different sources. Depression and Violence Depression, according to Webster (1988), is a psychotic condition marked by an inability to concentrate and feelings of dejection and quilt."(p.364) Depression is most commonly treatable with counseling, but what happens when counseling fail? Although our current mental health system is not perfect it has been able to bring us where we are today.
Crime can be described combination between both behavior and mental factors. This will prove incredibly crucial in the definition of crime in relation to mental illness. Many of those that commit crimes are not convicted due to their illness so it is important to note, for the purpose of this analysis, that all illegal activity is considered crime, regardless of conviction (Monahan and Steadman 1983).
The issue of executing mentally ill criminals has been widely debated among the public. They debate on whether it is right or wrong to execute a person who does not possess the capacity to think correctly. The mental illness is an ailment that affects the way a person thinks, feels, behaves and relates to others. The disease is caused by a combination of genetic, psychological, and environmental factors not a personal weakness or a character flaw. A study by the Death Penalty Information Center found that “executing the insane is unconstitutional; however, if an inmate's mental competency has been restored, he or she can then be executed (deathpenalty).” The time has come for us to accept the fact that executing mentally ill offenders is not beneficial to society for many reasons. Although some mentally ill criminals have broken the law, we need to have a federal law that mentally ill criminals shouldn’t be executed because it’s amoral to take away a life.
Psychopathology is what goes wrong with the mind. It is distress related to mental processes and statistical deviations from the norm. Psychopathology is what clinicians treat and researchers research (quoted in Frances & Widiger, 2012). Psychopathology has many possible definitions because it does not exist in a vacuum—the context affects the definition. Common themes in possible definitions include distress, dysfunction, disability, and dyscontrol, but none of these quite capture the whole picture (Frances & Widiger, 2012). What if a person is not distressed, but their behavior is clearly maladaptive, for example someone with antisocial personality disorder who manipulates others to achieve their goals? Is this person not pathological? Of
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.
A defence in criminal law arises when conditions exist to negate specific elements of the crime: the actus reus when actions are involuntary, the mens rea when the defendant is unaware of the significance of their conduct, or both. These defences will mitigate or eliminate liability for a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of such defenses. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime.
The second condition to be established is whether the defendant had a “disease of the mind”. This condition is