CU Forensic Evaluation the Assessment of A Defendant Competency Essay
CU Forensic Evaluation the Assessment of A Defendant Competency Essay CU Forensic Evaluation the Assessment of A Defendant Competency Essay ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL NURSING PAPERS Unformatted Attachment Preview PSY8340 U03a1 Supreme Court Decision Paper Please select from the following list of Supreme Court decisions: Competence to Stand Trial o Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) o Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981) o Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996) o Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) o Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402 (1960) o Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) o Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 1244 (1992) o Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) o Riggins v. Nevada, 524 U.S. 127 (1992) o Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) Criminal Responsibility o Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) o Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006) o Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992) o Jones v. U.S., 463 U.S. 354 (1983) o Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996) Death Penalty o Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) o Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) o Eddings v. Oklahoma, 436 U.S. 921 (1978) o Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981) o Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) o Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) o Hall v. Florida, 472 U.S. (2014) o Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 (1978) o Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) o Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) o Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) Violence Risk Assessment o Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) o Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) o Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) Child Custody o Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549 (1990) o DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 o Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990) o Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981) o Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817 (1967) Capella Proprietary and Confidential 1 o o o o Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984) Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (1992) Child Abuse & Neglect o DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 o Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987) o Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) Juvenile Justice o Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979) o In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) o In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) o Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) o Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) Capella Proprietary and Confidential 2 Running head: FORENSIC EVALUATION Forensic Evaluation Tiffany Hanna November 2020 Forensic Evaluation Introduction 1 FORENSIC EVALUATION 2 Forensic evaluation is an essential aspect of any countrys criminal justice system. For example, when an individual is presented before a judge, the judge may make an order for forensic evaluations to be conducted on the accused person to determine their fitness to stand trial and, at the same time, help to determine criminal responsibility.CU Forensic Evaluation the Assessment of A Defendant Competency Essay In a civil court, during a hearing in guardianship, the court may make an order for an assessment to be done on an individual to determine whether their mental state may allow them to be granted guardianship of a child. Whether it is in a criminal or civil case, a forensic evaluation plays an important role in assisting in the administration of justice. There are different types of evaluations that may be conducted by professionals. The type of assessment to be conducted plays an important role in the determination of the methodology to be applied. The primary purpose of this paper is to provide a forensic evaluation that focuses on four different types of forensic assessment, as well as a methodology that may be used in the forensic evaluation. Types of forensic evaluation There are many types of forensic evaluations that are aimed at achieving varying objectives. The following is an analysis of some types of forensic evaluation; Competency to confess In the United States justice system, the Miranda warning refers to the notification that the police provide to suspects who are already in their custody on their rights to keep quiet (Goldstein et al., 2018). While many accused persons will always take this advice and refuse to give any information to the police, there are instances where some accused persons seek to waive this right and provide information to the police. The competency to confess is a forensic assessment that determines the ability of an individual to waive the Miranda warning. When an individual makes the decision to waive these rights, a court may order for a forensic assessment to be done on the individuals to determine their state of mind and their FORENSIC EVALUATION 3 ability to confess. One of the principles of natural justice is that an individual cannot be compelled to adduce incriminating evidence in court. Thus, when an accused person seeks to waive this right, the court will order for competency to confess evaluation to be conducted on the individual (Walker et al., 2020). In the event where the outcome of the assessment of the outcome suggests that the accused person was not in a state of mind to confess, such a confession will not be admissible in the trial. Sanity at the time of the offense charged A forensic assessment to determine the sanity of an individual at the time the alleged offense was committed is one of the most common forensic assessments conducted in criminal proceedings. In this assessment, psychologists will examine the accused persons to determine whether or not the individual was in the right frame of mind when the alleged offense occurred. CU Forensic Evaluation the Assessment of A Defendant Competency Essay. For example, when an individual is accused of murder, one of the defenses that they may present in court is that they were not in the right frame of mind at the time of the offense. It is only a forensic examination that can give information on whether or not the individual was in the right frame of mind at the time of the incident. Independent medical evaluation (IME) for psychological damages An independent medical evaluation takes place when a healthcare professional who had not previously been involved with a patients healthcare is tasked to carry out an independent examination of an individual. In this evaluation, the doctor-patient relationship. In many cases, the assessment seeks to evaluate work-related injuries or any other medical condition where liability is being contested. When this assessment is done, there is usually a claim for compensation or for a party to be held responsible for acts of negligence that caused the medical condition (Byard, 2018). There are many parties that may request an independent medical evaluation. Some of them include an employer, insurer, and a court of law. However, FORENSIC EVALUATION 4 in many cases, an independent medical evaluation is sought when there is a claim of traumatic injury and during litigation. Juvenile court evaluation for amenability to treatment These are forensic evaluations that a court orders for the evaluation of whether or not a child who is before the court is amenable to treatment. In many of these cases, the assessment determines the presence of a mental health disorder in the child that needs to be addressed.CU Forensic Evaluation the Assessment of A Defendant Competency Essay. However, it is critical to note that when carrying out this evaluation, the interest is not only on the present condition but also on the past medications offered to the child and how the child responded to the treatment. Additionally, the evaluation will examine the presence of any factors that may have complicated the past treatment that was offered to the patient. While it may not have been a traditional practice in the juvenile court for children to enter into the insanity defense, this is increasingly becoming a common practice across the world (Chadda, 2013). When an adolescent is presented before a juvenile court to respond to some charges, it is possible that the defense can seek to enter into an insanity defense. This will prompt the court to order for the juvenile court evaluation for amenability to treatment. Selected methodology-Competency to confess As indicated earlier, the Miranda rights refer to the rights of accused persons in the custody of law enforcement to keep quiet and not to give any evidence to the police. The police, upon apprehending suspects, is expected to issue or inform the individuals of these rights. Thus, in many instances, accused persons decide to keep quiet when they are apprehended in the exercise of these rights. However, there are instances where accused persons make decisions to waive these rights. When an accused person suggests that they would want to waive these rights, the courts will decide to order for a forensic evaluation to be done on the accused persons to determine their competency or ability to confess. FORENSIC EVALUATION 5 An assessment to evaluate the competency to confess is often done after the confession has been done. To make this assessment, a comprehensive forensic evaluation must be done. Some of the most critical aspects of this evaluation include an in-depth interrogation of the patients medical history, an examination of the persons mental status, and robust psychological testing to review the individuals cognitive and emotional functioning. In this methodology, it is essential to note that the focus is on the potential psychological state that may have been displayed at the time of police questioning. It is recorded that given that the evaluation must be functionally basedthat is, clinically relevant data should be integrated with the appropriate legal criteria (i.e., knowing, intelligent, and voluntary), the mental health professional must specifically assess behavior relevant to the legal criteria (Cases, 2017). References FORENSIC EVALUATION 6 Byard, R. W. (2018). A forensic evaluation of impalement injuries. Medicine, Science and the Law, 58(2), 85-92. Cases, L. (2017). Evaluation of Competencies in the Criminal Justice System. The American Psychiatric Association Publishing Textbook of Forensic Psychiatry, 263. Chadda, R. K. (2013). Forensic evaluations in psychiatry. Indian journal of psychiatry, 55(4), 393. Goldstein, N. E., Haney-Caron, E., Levick, M., & Whiteman, D. (2018). Waving Good-Bye to Waiver: A Developmental Argument Against Youths Waiver of Miranda Rights. NYUJ Legis. & Pub. Poly, 21, 1. Walker, L. E., Shapiro, D., & Akl, S. (2020). Competency to Stand Trial. In Introduction to Forensic Psychology (pp. 53-67). Springer, Cham. Purchase answer to see full attachment. CU Forensic Evaluation the Assessment of A Defendant Competency Essay. Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10