Recovery for Psychiatric Damage - Essay Example

Recovery for Psychiatric Damage: Lord Oliver Recovery for Psychiatric Damage: Lord Oliver Introduction The Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police raised fundamental issues on the law in terms of how to handle psychiatric damage. The realization that the law had some drawbacks which could compromise the dispensation of justice prompted Lord Oliver to criticize the law. In his sentiments, he highlights that the law is cannot be said to be satisfactory or logical when it comes to defending justice. I concur with the sentiments that were expressed by Lord Oliver. There are boundaries which are supposed to be drawn out in view of the law on psychiatric damage. Firstly, there should be a distinction on what is accepted as perception. In this case, the law should clearly define what would qualify as a perception which may warrant compensation. The second issue concerns what would be deemed as a liability arising from the damage. In this case, there should be limits which are spelled out in regards to liability. The third aspect of the law entails what is known as the threshold which concerns the recovery made as a result of a claim or legal suit. The following discourse seeks to prove that the sentiments by Lord Oliver are true. The law on psychiatric damage is paradoxical. It seeks to protect the victim while at the same time puts caution on the kind of claim that can be sought by the victim. The objective of the law is to accord justice to all people irrespective of creed or personal influence1. The law carefully outlines what ‘damage’ in case of psychiatric pain is. The damage defined by the law states that is should not have been inflicted by a physical pain. This implies that for one to be eligible for consideration of a claim for any form of psychiatric damage, it should not be a physical injury. This is the paradox that surrounds the law on negligence in relation to causes of psychiatric damage. Such a situation evokes different reactions from law and policy makers. In fact, it makes one understand the sentiments, ‘I cannot, for my part, regard the present state of the law as either entirely satisfactory or as logically defensible’ (Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] PIQR 1, 26. When it comes to negligence that leads to medical conditions, the law is a bit clear. However, when it comes to psychiatric damage, the law tends to be a bit ambiguous. For instance, the law defines forms of injury as those that can be proven medically. However, in technical terms, a mental damage can be so abstract to even have a medical proof. The human psychology is a complex process2. Even abstract issues can affect the human mind. The challenge comes in showing proof that in deed damage was inflicted on a person. Looking back, these are some of the issues which contribute to the challenges that the law faces when it comes to handling issues of negligence which lead to psychiatric damage. Given that valuing the extent of damage caused on the mental aspects of human is a bit complicated. This then baffles one on how to award any damage that might arise from negligence3. This in fact leads to the assertion expressed above that the law is not conclusive on how to handle forms of psychiatric damage. In considering the argument that the law is defective in addressing psychiatric damage, it is important to look at what qualifies as an injury. Outrightly, the injury should not be physical. In this case, it is defined as a consequence of an act which induces a medical condition which is mental on the victim. Therefore, the injury has to be originating from shock as a victim who primarily was involved. Another definition posits that one can also be a secondary victim where an act subliminally influences a person thus inducing mental damage on the person. This might come from the fact that one might witness an act which might mentally affect the person. Based on this description, the victims of psychiatric damage are classified as either being a primary or even a secondary victim. If looked at analytically, the description of only two types of victims is not broad enough. In a psychological situation, there might be other effects which the law omits in its definition. One might suffer mentally without a medical proof which would mean that the person would not be eligible for a claim in relation to the damage inflicted. In addition, the clause might be exploited by people to seek compensations at the peril of the accused. Based on this, it is important to review the law since it needs to be safeguard the interests of the accused as well as the victim4. This is why the sentiments expressed above are true to some extent. There are only two considerations when it comes to awarding claims on the basis of psychiatric damage. The first one is that the damage should have affected an individual’s capacity to work or even study. The other consideration is that it affected a person’s relationship with either the family or other close persons. In this sense, the law is not quite satisfactory. This is because a mental damage might affect the victim’s life in many different ways. For instance, sleeping pattern might be affected from an incident witnessed. In addition, an individual might claim to have been affected at work while the real reason for the effect at work might be something else. These are some of the factors that must be put into consideration while addressing the concept of psychiatric damage. This, in fact, proves that the law on psychiatric damage needs to be revised to make it logical and relevant to the needs of the society. Damages of psychological nature are complicated. For instance, one might develop a mental problem which would be inherent and not needing a medical condition. In the same way, for a mental problem to be expressed, it might take time.5 This is the same with traumatic experiences. Victims would show signs of distress after exposure to repetitive of multiple mental abuses. The period for this might lead to challenges in regards to seeking legal justice. For instance, the death of the perpetrator might put such cases in jeopardy. In as much as mental injuries are classified into different categories based on this, there is still the argument that the clarification needs to be revised. That is why the case of addressing psychiatric damage is a bit complicated6. The current state of the law as it is needs to be revaluated. Recovery for Psychiatric Damage: Lord Oliver Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] AC 310 House of Lords Injuries at the workplace held by people control them from all perspectives. People’s lives are controlled from the personal levels and from within the precincts of the community. Through the same, people tend to become legal authorities. Man from the days of the ancestors including the early man can trace injuries at the workplace. Damage recovery has attributes in the contemporary mind of people covering several groupings7. It helps people within groups to abide by the doctrines without questioning. As a social phenomenon humans engage in legal authorities activities through group settings. From this point of view, damage recovery gives people the opportunity to link different specifics. Furthermore, it directs humans on the best way relationships can be developed and humanity appreciated8. The force pulling people together to allow co-existence as same species is natural. Through damage recovery, groups of people can express their feelings in secret languages. Damage recovery brings people together and helps to sustain their relationships hence encouraging harmonious associations9. Damage recovery cuts across all humans and research by different scholars has shown that it is a practice not associated with any other animal. Its mystery complexity becomes partially hidden if the people come together as a group and becomes practicing loyalists. There are those who believe that damage recovery has been held in groups for as long as has existed. Those who hold this view argue that humans create important relations with characters that are at the workplace from their time as toddlers10. The power behind damage recovery is invisible and intangible11. This is what makes people develop law. In this argument, a group becomes legal authorities after the ideology is integrated cognitively into their brain. This happens through social and emotional communications and combines a series of evolutionary cognitive processes perceived to be important. Lord Oliver holds that levels of sacred associations by people fall into four categories. They are the denominational level. This is where different groups are separated into smaller inclinations. The private level is second and at a collective level, fellowships become more helpful. The Secret level of legal authorities is another level mainly tackled from a psychological point of view12. Groups raise their children legal authorities learning and following their doctrines. Confining people keeps them of the laws not acceptable to the damage recovery they belong. Members may later in life change denominations but will remain legal authorities. Confinement that holds groups together gives an insight damage recovery as a social phenomenon. It explains that you can only convert adults who are willing and interested13. Members in this group become legal authorities after circumstances force them. They are faced with situations they cannot cope with and therefore seek for alternatives. The traumatic events they face serve to redirect them into joining some kind of damage recovery14. They believe that that a at the workplace power would help explain what man cannot People who lose wealth, jobs, and those who become ill later in their lives are some of the likely members who fall in this category. At all levels, groups subscribe to a set of laws and carry out particular practices as long as they consider the matters sacred15. Many times ethics are approved giving guidelines to the members. This has to satisfy the desire within their conscious minds. Damage recovery entangles personal identity. Sometimes it entails eternal salvation making it a very controversial issue. Any threat to personal belief is interpreted to mean a threat to personal being. Damage recovery is characterized by some laws that are followed by the members without asking questions as they relate to a superior power i.e. supernatural16. Since these laws are varied, intolerance results into damage recovery becoming a source of conflict. The differences sometimes occur on trivial matters of interpretation and since there cannot be arbiters, a quarrel becomes inevitable. Extremist followers push such ideologies while the complacent ones tend to seat back making the former get encouraged to win. Such are the trends that cause conflicts17. Extremists push for radical ideas and because most things in the world are considered a struggle between what is good and evil, all efforts are pulled together to make sure the former is defeated. The society is made of heterogeneous elements and therefore damage recovery is one of the issues used to distinguish people from others. Information that most people are always ignorant of the details that underlie laws held by others creates tension within the society18. This makes damage recovery a source of latent conflict. However, it can be a catalyst to latent conflict turning into real war. Such circumstances are always hard to resolve and in the end cause legal authorities conflict19. United Kingdom views damage recovery as an activity that would divert the loyalty from the government. Such conflicts occur due to lack of respect between the warring partners. Legal authorities’ nationalists do the reverse of the events in United Kingdom20. They believe that damage recovery is part of the state and land. This group similarly shares the views of others that when you touch any of it then you are interfering with their being. The holders of such ideologies fight for their damage recovery through government legislations where they insist that their damage recovery get priority and status in the political hierarchy. Governments will adopt some things used in such legal institutions if their bids become successful21. On the brighter of the discussion is that various attempts have been made to use damage recovery as a tool for conflict resolution. This has seen several measures of success while on other fronts the results are still not good22. Law is a vast and dynamic subject that covers numerous disciplines and features of the society23. In legal interpretations, lawyers cite different clauses besides reference to past cases. This portrays the seriousness of the matter a feature that implies that without adequate exposure and knowledge the law may not provide the desired justice. Furthermore, success in a legal tussle relies on the ability of either party to argue his or her case logically in order to eliminate any doubt. Judges evaluate the consistency in witness testimony and the provision of evidence. This implies that the law may not save an individual provided the other part has adequate evidence some of which may be falsified.24 These are considerations which should be taken note of in handling negligence which might lead to psychiatric damage. The determination of evidence for example is tedious and slow depending on the nature of the crime.25 The evidence admissible in a case of psychiatric damage should be backed by medical proof.26 This way, one would be charged based on facts presented before the prosecution.27 As stated earlier, some of the legal processes continue for years a time within which the plaintiff and the defendant live in the same society. The analysis of evidence and the numerous witness testimonies take long implying that a court case may not provide justice within the shortest time that either party may require. Additionally, some crimes are spontaneous yet have adverse effects on the aggrieved parties. Such parties therefore require effective and equally efficient justice a feature that no judicial proceeding may provide. Legal process relies on the investigative instincts of the law enforcers who investigate the nature of the crime, arrest the perpetrators and provide evidence to the courts28. Such interrelations with different arms of the government among other social stakeholders slow the judicial process thus denying the aggrieved parties the justice they often require.29 This affects the quality of the proceedings thus denying either party the effective defense of the law. Conclusion and Recommendation The Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police case had genuine concerns regarding then current legal systems. The issues raised call for a review of the existent laws on psychiatric damage. Among the recommendations is that there should be a distinction on what is accepted as perception. In this case, the law should clearly define what would qualify as a perception which may warrant compensation. The second recommendation concerns what would be deemed as a liability arising from the damage. In this case, there should be limits which are spelled out in regards to liability. The third recommendation should be on what is known as the threshold which concerns the recovery made as a result of a claim or legal suit. Looking at back at the sentiments, it is true that legal cases based on psychiatric damage are challenging. The nature of mental damage on an individual might be abstract to an extent where defining the mental damage gets hard. Besides, the law needs to take caution to shield the accused from exploitation by the claimants30. Given the complexity that surrounds the human mind, it would be hard to give a comprehensive evaluation of psychiatric damage on a person. This makes the law face a paradoxical situation; protecting the accused and ensuring justice on the victim. Therefore, the law only seeks to uphold principles which are considered just. However, in doing this, it comes out as not very logical and comprehensive on addressing psychiatric damage. Bibliography Top of Form Top of Form Alexander, Z. & Goran, S. (2007). International Criminal Law: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Atiyah, P. S. (1979). The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract. London: Clarendon Press. Bogen, D. S. (2003). Privileges and Immunities: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Bomberg, E. & Peterson, J. (2012).The European Union: How Does it Work? (3rd ed) Oxford: Oxford: University Press. Chris Turner (2007). Tort Law 2nd Edition. Hodder Arnold. Corbett, R. Jacobs, F. & Shackleton, M. (2011). The European Parliament (8th ed.). London: John Harper Publishing. Craig, P. & Búrca, G. (2007). EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Damian, C. Gareth, D. & Giorgio, M. (2010). European Union. Cambridge: CUP. Damian, C. Gareth, D. & Giorgio, M. (2010). European Union. Cambridge: CUP. Durchslag, M. R. (2002). State Sovereign Immunity: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Ewan, M. (2005). Contract Law - Text, Cases and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ewan, M. (2005). Contract Law - Text, Cases and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fox, H. (2013). Law of State Immunity. S.l.: Oxford University Press. Giuttari, T. R. (1970). The American Law of Sovereign Immunity: An Analysis of Legal Interpretation. New York: Praeger. Glendon, M. (1994). A Nation Under Lawyers: How the Crisis in the Legal Profession Is Transforming American Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Glendon, M. (1994). A Nation Under Lawyers: How the Crisis in the Legal Profession Is Transforming American Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Halbrook, S. P. (1998). Freedmen, the 14th Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Herring, J. (2012). Criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Herring, J. (2012). Criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leon, A. G. (1979). The Rationale of Proximate Cause. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leuchtenburg, E. (1996). The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Michael, S. M. (2000). The Metaphysics of Causal Intervention. New York: Aspen Publishers. Psychiatry , 37, 392–397. Randy, E. B. (2003). Contracts. London: Aspen Publishers. Singapore: s.n.. Slomanson, W. R. (2011). Fundamental Perspectives on International Law. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Social Exclusion Unit (2004). Mental Health and Social Exclusion. Social Exclusion Unit. Stein, L. I. & Test, M. A. (1980) Alternatives to mental hospital treatment. Archives of General Stephenson, G. (2012). Sourcebook on tort law. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Bottom of FormThe Committee, 1979. Print. Sovereign Immunity: The Tort Liability of Government and Its Officials. Raleigh, N.C:. Trieman, N. & Leff, J. (2002) Long-term outcome of long-stay psychiatric in-patients considered Tuke, S. (1813). Description of the Retreat. Reprinted 1996, Process Press University of Singapore., & National University of Singapore. (1969). Singapore law review. unsuitable to live in the community: TAPS Project 44. British Journal of Psychiatry, 181, 428–432. Bottom of Form Read More