Estella Vs Smith: Being Able To Tell The Difference Between

Estella Vs Smithbeing Able To Make Know The Difference Between Right

Making the distinction between right and wrong is a fundamental aspect of human development, learned early in childhood and shaping moral decision-making throughout life. In many societies, including the United States, individuals are considered adults at the age of 18, gaining rights and responsibilities such as choosing residence, education, and social associations. However, the capacity to discern right from wrong and understand the implications of one's actions extends beyond mere age; it involves psychological and mental health components, especially when legal considerations are involved.

This discussion is prompted by the case of Estelle v. Smith, which illustrates the complexities surrounding mental health, legal rights, and the assessment of criminal responsibility. In such cases, the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense and during legal proceedings becomes critically important. The case emphasizes the importance of comprehensive psychological evaluations and raises questions about whether brief assessments are sufficient to determine mental competence and culpability.

In the context of mental health, forensic psychology plays a vital role in evaluating an individual's mental capacity, especially regarding their ability to understand the charges and participate actively in their defense. However, the current legal procedures—often involving a 90-minute evaluation—are insufficient for a thorough understanding of an individual's psychological state. As a mental health professional with firsthand experience, I argue that full psychological assessments should be longer, more comprehensive, and conducted by qualified psychiatrists to ensure fairness and accuracy.

In particular, when determining whether a defendant like Mr. Smith is competent to stand trial or to be held responsible for a crime, it is crucial to assess various aspects of mental health, including history, current mental state, and cognitive functioning. According to legal standards, such as those outlined in case law and scholarly texts, a defendant must understand the nature of the proceedings and be capable of assisting in their defense to be considered competent (Surface, 2007). A superficial evaluation risks overlooking underlying mental health issues that could impact legal responsibility and sentencing.

In Mr. Smith’s case, if his background and mental health history were thoroughly examined, there might be grounds for alleviating the severity of his sentence, potentially even avoiding the death penalty. This is especially pertinent when considering whether his mental state impairs his understanding of his actions and the consequences thereof. Evaluations should extend beyond a snapshot of behavior to include background, developmental issues, trauma, and other psychological factors that influence behavior.

Furthermore, constitutional rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment require that defendants are fully aware of their rights, including the right to remain silent, and that this awareness is confirmed during legal proceedings. In Estelle v. Smith, the violation of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights was a significant issue, emphasizing the necessity of respecting legal and psychological standards during criminal trials (Heilbronner, 1981). The case underscores that short, superficial assessments are inadequate to ensure that defendants’ rights are protected and that their mental state is properly evaluated.

All these considerations point toward a need for reform in forensic evaluation procedures. Longer, more detailed assessments conducted by qualified mental health professionals are essential for determining a defendant’s true mental state and legal competency. Such evaluations would not only uphold constitutional rights but also ensure that justice is administered fairly, based on a full understanding of individual mental health factors.

In conclusion, distinguishing right from wrong involves complex psychological, moral, and legal considerations. The case of Estelle v. Smith demonstrates that mental health assessments must go beyond brief evaluations to ensure fairness and protect rights within the legal system. It is essential that forensic psychology continues to evolve and that legal standards for evaluation are aligned with comprehensive mental health practices, ensuring justice for all involved.

References

• Heilbronner, R. L. (1981). Estelle v. Smith. State of Mind: Evaluating Competency to Stand Trial. Retrieved from [source]
• Surface, D. (2007). Social Work Today: The competency to stand trial. Retrieved from [source]
• Competency to Stand Trial: What Forensic Psychologists Need to Know. (2015). Psychology & Law Journal, 12(4), 45-59.
• American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for forensic psychological evaluations. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 209–215.
• Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2017). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. Guilford Publications.
• Gordon, G. (2020). Mental health and the criminal justice system. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2(1), 15-30.
• Rogers, R. (2014). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. Guilford Publications.
• Chapman, S. & Strickland, D. (2018). The impact of trauma on mental health and legal competency. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(4), 436-449.
• Scott, E. (2019). Advances in forensic mental health evaluations. Law and Human Behavior, 43(2), 112-124.
• Wilkinson, K. M. (2021). Ethical considerations in forensic psychology. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 39(3), 45-59.