Also it could also be a way for a prosecution team to get a conviction by stating that since the medical community does not officially recognize it as a disorder then the defendant doesn’t meets the legal terms for insanity. In conclusion the case of Jenea Ann Mugina is a sad one because of her mental illness she was ripped apart from her son even though it seems that it wasn’t
A properly trained Forensic Psychologist is needed to make a proper evaluation of a potentially insane defendant in any case where insanity is suspected. This is a necessary area of specialty for psychology, leading to the formation of Forensic Psychologists, because of the demand for such evaluations. This case is significant because it led to the formation of a niche for psychologists to specialize in. Competency evaluations for insanity are a big part of legal cases because of this case pertaining to potentially insane defendants. There are several crimes where an evaluator is needed to decipher the competence of whether an individual is insane because the insanity plea has become a common one.
Before the court can evaluate the specific details of this section, they must first re-define what a mental disorder is based on case laws. There are three crucial cases which contributed in shaping the definition of a mental disorder: Cooper v. R., R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, and R. v. Stone cases. In Cooper v. R. (1980), Justice Dickson defines disease of the mind— also known as mental disorder— as the following: ...“[D]isease of the mind” embraces any illness, disorder or abnormal condition which impairs the human mind and its functioning… [where of] such intensity as to render the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the violent act or of knowing that it is
The legal guideline aims to remind psychologists about their primary obligations as well as rational “precautions to respect the confidentiality rights of those with whom they work or consult, recognizing that confidentiality may be established by law, institutional rules, or professional or scientific relationships.” Maintaining privacy and confidentiality of the defendant facilitate their openness assisting them to recall and relate “pertinent facts and events, including his motives and actions at the time of the offense, and be able to testify in his behalf and to challenge prosecution witnesses.”
Advancements in forensic technology and research will probably create new opportunities for forensic psychologists to contribute to legal proceedings and criminal
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 2(4), i-109. Greene, E., & Heilbrun, K. (2011). Wrightsmans psychology and the legal system (7th ed.). 20 Davis Drive Belmont, CA 94002 USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Thompson-Cannino, J., Cotton, R., & Torneo, E. (2010).
The article “Brain Scans in the Courtroom” written by Andreas Kuersten is about advances in neuroimaging and how they may benefit in a trial of law. Kuerstens’ main objective is to argue whether or not the advancement in neuroimaging (while helping scientists with their understanding of the brain) can bring forth more evidence into the courtroom by using brain scans of the accused. The significance of these scans is that they can be used in helping a jury rule someone insane, thus meaning the defendant was unaware that his or her actions were unjust, or proving that he or she was in a right state of mind during the crime(s). The article provides convincing scientific evidence promoting the use of these scans making it difficult to deny their
For my article I chose, “Decision Making in the Crime Commission Process: Comparing Rapist, Child Molesters, and Victim-Crossover Sex Offenders” by Eric Beauregard, Benoit Leclerc, and Patrick Lussier. In traditional beliefs it suggests sex offenders are mainly driven by an uncontrollable urge to sexually offend. This article takes a looks into comparing how rapist, child molesters, and victim-crossover sex offenders make their criminal decisions. It investigated how decision-making is involved in target selection. The researchers used mixed methods along with Clarke and Cornish’s decision-making model to evaluate the offender’s actions.
1. What is an IRB? An IRB is an institutional review board. In other words, a board that evaluates federally funded research.
If the offender is convicted of a designated offence, and has been previously convicted at least twice of designated offences, being sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment for each of those convictions (Criminal Code 1985:s. 752.01), the prosecutor has a duty to advise the court as to whether she/he intends to make a dangerous offender application. If the court finds that there are reasonable grounds to “believe that an offender… might be found to be a dangerous offender under section 753…. the court shall… remand the offender, for… an assessment or have an assessment performed by experts for use as evidence” (Criminal Code 1985:s. 752.1[1]). Expert medical evidence, typically gathered by and testified to by “psychiatrist or psychologist” (Blais 2014:3), is a requirement for a dangerous offender
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is the practice of finding the link between one’s thought’s belief’s and actions, and finding an alternative method to intervene with the connection. This effective process has been in place within the Criminal Justice system for many years now. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has many different uses and can be placed in to effect in many different ways. Take the for mentioned Criminal Justice System for example. For many years now the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy process has helped many inmates in the past and present to change their thought process and actions while within the criminal justice system.
There are many factors that contribute to a wrongful conviction. Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest cause. The mind is not a tape recorder; it does not record events exactly as it’s seen. Sometimes the witness or victim would choose the wrong person at photo arrays and lineups. The memory of a witness in a crime scene is like any other evidence it must be preserved carefully.
It is quite common in our life that when people are admiring a movie star, when would try their best to mimic his actions. For example, people would imitate his ways of walking or his accents when he is talking. Or, when we are talking to somebody, if his ways of talking or some of actions are really similar to us, we would feel affection from him or her. Why would this kind of situation happen? An experiment which perfectly showed this phenomenon was done by Chartrand and Bargh in 1999, who showed there is a natural tendency for people to mimic other people’s behaviors which is known as Chameleon Effect.
According to Andrews and Bonta (2010) the psychology of criminal conduct ( PCC) can be defined as an approach to scientifically understand the criminal behavior of individuals through a systematic approach. Additionally, the psychology of criminal conduct is considered to be interdisciplinary, and considers all aspects of science that will assist in the further comprehension of an individuals criminal behavior, and the causes of criminal behavior (Andrews and Bonta , 2010). Andrews and Bonta ( 2010) stated that the psychology of criminal conduct can be considered a subfield of criminology and psychology due to common beliefs and common interests with both disciplines. Furthermore, the psychology of criminal conduct can be described as using
(NAMI). If people with a mental illness receive counseling and/or treatment for their illness many arrests and crimes could be
