Forensic Psychology: Addington versus Texas - Essay Example

? Forensic Psychology Task: Forensic Psychology Addington v. Texas The case refers to a suit instituted by Addington’s motherpetitioning for involuntary commitment of her son. She cited that the son had threatened her. Consequently, the police arrested Addington and arraigned him in court. The trial court, in Texas, required the jury to base their ruling on a clear confirmation of Addington’s illness. The jury decided that Addington was psychologically ill, and commitment was vital. The defendant appealed in the Texas Court of Appeal. The defendant’s idea was that the ruling ought to have a basis on unquestionable proof of his illness. The court of appeal accepted the argument, therefore, reversing the ruling. The case proceeded to the Texas Supreme Court, which reversed the ruling to the initial sentence of commitment. The court cited that the dealings had fulfilled the requirements in civil commitment. The case wound up in the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court differed with the lower court’s decision. It indicated that though the substantiation need not be a past doubt, it must be unambiguous and credible (FindLaw, 2012). The court elevated the need for evidence from the predominance of proof to the unambiguous and compelling. Previously its prerequisite was only a probability that the person was ill and could harm others. The court depicted the weight of an individual’s liberty as its cause. Therefore, the responsibility of substantiation rested on the claimant. Importantly, it recognized involuntary commitment as medical, and needing the intrusion of mental health specialist to illuminate on the facts. These experts consist of psychiatrists and psychologists. Such proof as required by the court could only emanate from mental health experts. The case identified the role of a psychologist in the proceedings of cases entailing mentally ill persons. This revealed the significance of accurate interpretation of facts regarding the condition of the person by specialists involved in psychology. Consequently, psychologists had to know what counted as credible evidence in the justice system since they were to participate in it. Additionally, psychologists needed the knowledge on how to present their arguments within the precincts of the law. This marked a significant development in forensic psychology. In addition, it reiterated the weight of expert witnesses. It also contributed to the need for forensic assessment tools, as well as techniques. Goldstein identified studies that have resulted from the ruling of various cases in the 1970s. These rulings, including Addington v. Texas, led to studies in measures regarding the mentally ill, such as violence. As cited in the case, the jury required proof that the person was violent and could harm others; consequently, psychologists had to develop measure that could provide clear proof that subjects were violent. Such studies included the MacArthur research on intellectual illness and aggression (Goldstein 2007). The importance of the ruling reappeared in Washington vs. Harper in 1990 where forced medication of inmates was upheld (APA, 2012). The court repeated a comparable statement regarding the attestation that the inmate required forced medication. The court cited that the proof had to be clear, cogent, and compelling. This evidence could only be available from experts such as forensic psychologists and not the judicial system. The forceful administration was found not to infringe the due process, since the verdict to give the drugs was arrived at by specialists working with the inmate; consequently, the judges could not interfere with the decisions of experts who were best suited in making such decisions. Question 2 Description of the two roles One of the vital functions of forensic psychology is in custody evaluations. Since the 1980s, divorce rates have continued to increase. The 2009 census revealed that out of the 19.1 and 17.6 weddings conducted per 1000 capita in men and women respectively, divorces were final in 9.2 and 9.7 per 1000 capita. Formerly, the custody of the child in such cases was automatically assigned to the mother while the roles of support were allotted to the fathers. However, it emerged that this did not provide the appropriate welfare for the child. Alternatively, the joint custody emerged to secure the child’s interests in cases of divorce (Arrigo & Shipley, 2005). From this, contested custody arose. This points to instances where the parents cannot agree on who will have the guardianship of the child. This arises, often, when mothers try to secure child support and fathers attempt to avoid paying for the child’s support. In such cases, the judge faces a challenge in determining the parent to secure the interest of the child. The challenge abounds since the judge rarely knows the family. The judicious option is to consult with an expert on child related matters. The expert is knowledgeable on child progression, family dynamics, and psychopathology. The professional evaluates the parents and the child, and then makes suggestions regarding the best parent for the child’s custody. Additionally, the evaluation includes other suggestions on parenting after divorce. These recommendations carry substantial weight in the decisions of the judge. Another role of forensic psychology is to assess the inmates’ mental health. Incarceration is a traumatic phenomenon, which adversely affects the health of inmates. The inmates suffer detachment from their families, and, at times, their sentence assures them that this will go on for life (Arrigo & Shipley, 2005). The separation, confinement, and the penal environment contribute to the deterioration of inmates’ mental health. A psychologist is required to assess the mental condition of inmates in ensuring that the penal environment does not become hazardous due to inmates’ mental health. The evaluation also ensures that inmates receive proper care and attention during their confinement. Subspecialties where the roles belong Juvenile forensic psychology is a subspecialty of the forensic psychology. It represents the congregation between psychological wellbeing and the juvenile justice structure (Grigorenko, 2012). It taps on the increasing importance of intellectual health in behavior therapy. Additionally, this stance utilizes psychology knowledge on child development in securing the interests of the children, where children concerns traverse with the law. At such points, the field draws the knowledge on children to inform the judicial system the pertinent matters regarding children. Correctional forensic psychology refers to the intersection between psychology and rectification. Its practitioners are mostly prevalent in correctional facilities, where they are involved in applying psychology knowledge in the behavior modification. The field offers knowledge about different correction methods, and provides consultancy on the mental health of inmates. Additionally, forensic issue such as malingering, appropriateness of programs and forensic treatment issue with the area of correction fall under this subspecialty. Contribution of the roles to the subspecialties The role of custody appraisal provides a channel for the application of knowledge on child development in the judicial system. Through custody evaluation, the psychologist utilizes knowledge on the nature of growth and development to assess the appropriate alternative in raising a child after divorce. It evaluates the environment under which the mental health of the child is most secure. In such cases, the juvenile forensic psychologist provides the judicial system with expert knowledge on children (Grigorenko, 2012). Assessing the mental health of inmates allows the psychologist to endow the judicial system with information on the mental health of inmates. Significantly, such information is imperative in designing appropriate approaches to problems within the correctional facilities. How roles of forensic psychology professionals contribute to forensic psychology subspecialties According to sources that illuminate on the issue of the roles of a forensic psychologist, it is apparent that different forensic psychologists specialize in dissimilar specialties. A number of categories have specialized in criminal behavior, post-traumatic stress, as well as neuropsychology. These professionals venture fully on certain areas of psychology thus acquiring much information, which they later use in enriching such subspecialties. For instance, a professional who is proficient in dealing with juveniles can contribute considerably to juvenile forensic psychology. The same applies to any other professional depicting immeasurable expertise in their specialization areas. References American Psychology Association. (2012). Washington v. Harper. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/washington.aspx Arrigo, B., & Shipley, S. (2005). Introduction to forensic psychology: issues and controversies in law, law enforcement, and corrections. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. FindLaw. (2012). Addington V. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979). Thomson Reuters Business. Retrieved from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=441&invol=418 Grigorenko, E. (2012). Juvenile forensic psychology and psychiatry. New York, NY: Springer. Goldstein, A. (2007). Forensic psychology: emerging topics and expanding roles. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Read More