Question

Instructions: Read each case, 1 - 7, and choose which forensic psyche identification goes with that particular case. Explain your rationale for your choice. Submit your assignment as an attachment.

Case # 1 Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) In 1974, Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of murder, and sentenced to death. While on death row in a Florida prison, Ford’s mental status declined, as he began exhibiting symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. Among other wild delusions, Ford declared himself to be Pope John Paul III, and personally appointed nine new justices to the state’s Supreme Court. A panel of psychiatrists examined Ford, and determined that, although he suffered from a host of mental disorders, he was capable of understanding the effect the death penalty would have on him. The governor then signed Ford’s death warrant in 1984. Ford sued the Florida Department of Corrections. Eventually the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was ruled that Florida’s procedures for determining whether individuals are incompetent were lacking. Further, the Court ruled that executing the mentally insane was cruel and inhumane, and that such a decision could not be left solely to the administrative branch of government, but must involve a proper judicial hearing. As a result of Ford v. Wainwright, a new process was instituted and a court-appointed psychologist finds a defendant or inmate to be mentally incompetent and unable to completely understand the legal proceeding. The court can order the individual be treated, even while held in a secure facility, until he is able to understand his execution.

A. Competency to Stand Trial

B. M’naghten Rule

C. HIPAA

D. Involuntary Commitment

E. Privilege communication

F. Tarasoff Rule

Rationale:

Case # 2 On June 21, 2000, 17-year-old Eric Clark shot and killed Flagstaff, Arizona Police Officer Jeffrey Moritz. Clark had been suffering from delusions and hallucinations and had been diagnosed as suffering schizophrenia and psychosis. At trial, he attempted to present evidence of his mental illness in order to negate the mens rea knowledge and intent elements of first degree murder. The government, however, argued successfully that under Arizona's definition of insanity (A.R.S. § 13-502(A)) and State v. Mott, evidence of Clark's mental illness was impermissible to negate the mens rea of the crime. Clark was subsequently convicted of first degree murder. He appeals the conviction, arguing that preventing him from using evidence of his mental disease to negate the mens rea of the crime violates his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. A. Competency to Stand Trial

B. M’naghten Rule

C. HIPAA

D. Involuntary Commitment

E. Privilege communication

F. Tarasoff Rule

Rationale:

Case # 3 The patient did not tell his therapist of intent to harm himself and a former girlfriend's new boyfriend but did communicate this to his father. The father in turn told the therapist of his conversation and the therapist encouraged the father to have his son hospitalized. The inpatient psychiatrist discharged the patient over the therapist's objection by telephone and the patient then killed the boyfriend and himself. (The therapist did not see the patient after the father called and never was advised by the patient of his intent to harm the victim.). The parents of the victim sued the therapist. The therapist moved for summary judgment, which immunizes psychotherapists from liability based on California Civil Code 43.92. "where the patient has communicated to the psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims”. The therapist argued he could not be liable for failing to alert the police and the intended victim to danger posed by his patient because the patient had never directly disclosed to him a threat. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case because the communication was not from the patient and therefore was immunized under the statute. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision stating that the trial court too narrowly construed the the rule and further stating that a communication from a family member to a therapist made for the purpose of advancing a patient's therapy, is a "patient communication" within the meaning of the statute.

A. Competency to Stand Trial

B. M’naghten Rule

C. HIPAA

D. Involuntary Commitment

E. Privilege communication

F. Tarasoff Rule

Rationale:

For each case (1-3) choose which forensic psyche identification (A-E) goes with that particular case. Explain your rationale for your choice.

Answer 1

Case 1 is a case of competency to stand trial .

A person is mentally incompetent to stand trial if he or she is unable to understand the character and consequences of the proceedings against him or her or is unable properly to assist in his or her defense.

Case 2 is a case of M'naghten Rule . It is case of defense of insanity:

that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

Case 3. is a case of Tarasoff rule . When a client communicates to a psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence directed against an identifiable victim(s), which allows for a breach of confidentiality to law enforcement and potential victims.