Research Findings On Landmark Cases Related To Forensic Psyc ✓ Solved

Research findings on landmark cases related to forensic psych

In this module, present your research findings on the landmark cases related to competency to stand trial (CST), criminal responsibility, the right to receive mental health treatment, the right to refuse psychiatric treatment, coercion to mental health treatment, and civil commitment and treatment of sex offenders.

Create a case report for each selected case, including the following headings: Title and Citation, Type of Action, Facts of the Case, Contentions of the Parties, Issue, Decision, Reasoning, and Rule of Law. Write the case reports in not more than a 6-page Microsoft Word document, following APA guidelines for sources attribution. Use credible sources such as court decisions, legal analyses, academic journals, and authoritative online platforms related to forensic psychology and law.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Title and Citation: Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). This landmark case was heard in the United States Supreme Court, establishing critical standards for assessing competency to stand trial within the U.S. legal system.

Type of Action: Constitutional challenge and civil rights case regarding criminal procedure and mental health standards.

Facts of the Case: In 1957, Clarence Dusky was charged with federal criminal offenses. Throughout pretrial proceedings, Dusky demonstrated potential mental impairments, raising questions about his competency to stand trial. The forensic psychologists evaluated his mental state, and his defense argued that he was unable to understand the nature of the proceedings or assist in his defense effectively. The case highlighted the importance of reliably assessing a defendant's mental capacity in criminal proceedings and protecting constitutional rights.

Contentions of the Parties: The prosecution contended that Dusky was competent to stand trial because he understood the charges and could assist his attorney. The defense argued that Dusky lacked the mental capacity necessary for a fair trial, thereby infringing on his due process rights. They emphasized the need for a clear standard for evaluating competency to avoid unjust convictions of individuals unable to comprehend or participate properly.

Issue: Does the standard for determining competency to stand trial require that a defendant understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings and be able to assist in their own defense?

Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion crafted by Justice Warren, established the benchmark for competency: defendants must have a "rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against them." The Court remanded the case for further evaluation under this standard, laying the foundation for future forensic assessments of mental capacity in criminal cases.

Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the defendant's mental capacity must be sufficient to ensure a fair trial under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court emphasized that competency is not an all-or-nothing determination but involves an ongoing evaluation of the defendant’s mental state concerning the criminal process. Justice Warren highlighted the importance of protecting individual rights while allowing the justice system to function effectively, balancing the state’s interest with defendants’ rights.

Rule of Law: The standard for competency to stand trial requires that a defendant has a "rational and factual understanding" of the proceedings and the ability to assist in their own defense. This ruling set the precedent for forensic mental health evaluations, requiring courts to consider both cognitive understanding and rational capacity when determining a defendant’s fitness for trial.

References

• Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).
• 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.
• Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. S. (1995). The forensic evaluation of competence to stand trial. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 23(2), 159-168.
• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
• Simon, R. I., & Gagliardi, G. (2009). On the development of forensic psychiatry: Historical perspectives and current concerns. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 37(2), 241-258.
• Finkelman, M. D. (2017). Competency to stand trial evaluations: A review of the literature. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 28(3), 336-351.
• Rogers, R., & Murrie, D. (2019). Evaluation of competence to stand trial. In K. M. Douglas (Ed.), Forensic assessment of competency and criminal responsibility (pp. 29-49). Springer.
• California Courts. (2020). Legal standards for competency evaluations. Retrieved from https://www.courts.ca.gov/
• American Bar Association. (2018). Standards for criminal justice: Evaluation of mental competency. ABA Publications.
• Elbogen, E. B., & Johnson, S. C. (2009). The intricate link between violence and mental disorder: Findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66(2), 152-161.