Article Critique: How Reliable Are Forensic Evaluations of Legal Sanity - Essay Example

There were many disagreements made. Most often the disagreements were made when the defendant was under drugs or alcohol at the time he committed the offence. However, evaluators were found agreeing where it was found out that the defendant had been in a psychiatric hospital or under a psychiatrist’s treatment before he committed the offence. The judges in the court follow what the majority of evaluators say (Boccaccini 100). This study examines the need for training and practise in the field as evaluators commonly disagree to opinions.

This means that there is something wrong in the evaluation method or theory which has to be corrected. The courts fully depend on the forensic evaluators so the law department must ensure that the methods used are appropriate. If this continues, the sanity defence can be easily used and any criminal may be freed on this basis. This is what the lay persons feel and they claim that forensic evaluators cannot judge the defendant’s state of mind when he committed the crime. This is also because the evaluation usually takes place after a long time of the conviction.

However, many also believe that the public view about the sanity defence is exaggerated because statistics show that the defence is rarely used in court cases and when it is used, it is rarely successful. The public assumes that it is used commonly and can cause many wrong decisions in cases. The literature in this article focuses on the research done to find the value of these forensic evaluations. These evaluations are complex and they are important in court cases. Many of the courts simply believe in what the forensic evaluations say and proceed with those beliefs.

But they don’t know how much of it is true as there are conflicting views. Every forensic evaluator has a different way to evaluate and thus different opinions are given. So how to ensure that the evaluations made are reliable and accurate (Boccaccini 100). This research is important as it presents studies through which the reliability of the forensic evaluations can be examined. The research includes many views, theories, methods and practices which are applied to the forensic evaluations to ensure their reliability.

It is an important aspect to consider as court cases depend on the forensics reports, and if they are unreliable, it can lead to many different outcomes of the case which may negatively impact our future society. The study context is based on samples taken in Hawaii because it is the place where courts require more than one evaluation to see what the majority says. This is why problems arise and so many disagreements are seen. The sampling method is chosen for this study where cases are taken and evaluations are made and then divided into three separate sanity evaluations for one defendant.

36 forensic evaluators were taken and they produced 483 reports which were included in the sample. The study also shows how the courts have reacted on issues where the disagreements were presented. However, in majority of cases the majority evaluations were considered but in certain cases where disagreements were present, the cases usually considered insanity over sanity of the defendant (Boccaccini 103). The limitation to the study is the lack of research done. The sample taken is the 384 cases decided in Hawaii which consecutively raised the defence of insanity.

These cases were taken as samples and the courts showed that 92% of