Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Human beings have freedom and rights they must enjoy despite their differences in age, sex, economy, religion, or tribe. Therefore, the constitution grants them the right to enjoy their freedoms without interruptions. However, sometimes, this freedom comes with responsibilities, and how people fail to play their roles effectively; this freedom may be restricted (Simpson and Vasaly 2011). The police department is entitled to ensure people follow rules as outlined by the constitution. In addition, the judicial system ensures people access free and fair justice in line with the constitution. Conversely, some court rulings elicit controversy due to negligence or the use of inappropriate procedures.
Psychology is a field of science that deals with the analysis of human behavior with regard to mental fitness. Various psychological theories explain how and why people behave in different ways. As a result, these theories necessitate the need to have individuals examined before making court rulings (Simpson and Vasaly 2011). In most cases, psychologists argue that human behavior is largely affected by their mental status, thus, necessitating the need for counseling or treatment rather than imprisonment.
According to the first issue on Insanity Defense, the court rules in favor of the deceased, and Clark is sentenced to life imprisonment. However, several psychological perspectives were blatantly ignored while passing the judgment. The Arizona laws, as well as the constitution, gives suspects an upper hand if they have sufficient evidence to prove the absence of minimal, mental fitness to commit the alleged crimes. The presence of expert evidence to prove that Clark was suffering from schizophrenia was not considered before making the ruling. Moreover, there was enough evidence to proof the accused was actively psychotic while committing the crime (Simpson and Vasaly 2011). Shooting a policeman is not a daily occurrence especially by innocent civilians who have not committed any crime and, thus, are not in the police lists.
Clark was paranoid due to his condition. However, the court failed to identify and consider this aspect that made him kill the policeman in cold blood. Psychologists and sociologists argue that Schizophrenia is a condition that affects an individuals sense of security in terms of strange people, places or objects (Simpson and Vasaly 2011). Therefore, there was no doubt that Clarks reaction was as a result of the psychological experiences he went through when he saw the policeman. His reaction was involuntary, and he could not understand why he killed the policeman. Therefore, the court ruling was unfair to him.
Secondly, the American Psychiatric Association and other agencies filed appeal against these rulings. They stated that the court ignored experts reports on the mental instability of the accused. Secondly, it gave serious punishments to the accused regardless of the crimes intention. Thirdly, the court ignored expert advice regarding how mental instability may affect an individuals actions.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court supported the Arizona court rulings and stated that it had the right to bar the Insanity Defense Team from presenting its evidence. In addition, the higher court ruled that psychological and psychiatric evidences are likely to confuse the jury due to their approach to mental stability and its influence on human beings. In light of this, it is evident that Clark was not in an appropriate mental position when the crime occurred. Therefore, the jury should have considered all expert opinions and results before making their final decision. The presence of the Evidence of Sanity in the constitution as a way of defending suspects or criminals was ignored (Simpson and Vasaly 2011). Therefore, the Arizona court made a subjective ruling that failed to consider key constitutional clauses before making its final decision.
In the second case of the United States and Lyons, 706 F.2d 321, the court ignored the presence of mental instability as a result of drug addiction. Even though, the American Psychiatric Association appealed against the ruling the court was right to refute their appeal arguing that drug addiction is a criminal activity that develops voluntarily (Simpson and Vasaly 2011). This was not a scapegoat to commit a crime. The appeal decision was competent and objective based on the circumstances that led to the accused committing the crime.
The third case of Jenkins and the United States, the accused filed an appeal basing on the evidence of three psychiatrists who examined and had the test results. However, the court failed to consider their evidence claiming that their expert advice could not offer substantial grounds to reverse the ruling. Even though, the appeal was accepted and a rehearing planned the experts did not agree as to whether mental instability propelled the crimes. This means even psychologists did not believe in their tests and findings. It is evident that there was a conflict between the courts and APA.
However, the presence of expert advice and constitutional provisions of defense of victims suffering from mental illness, there are many gaps to be filled. All expert advice should be considered before making rulings and allow sufficient time for investigations to be conducted (Simpson and Vasaly 2011). In addition, the court system must establish a team of psychiatrists to examine criminals and present their findings. The courts should not rely expressly on private psychiatrists to offer information regarding suspects mental abilities.
The main ethical dilemmas in these three cases involve the use of mental instability as the basis for making decisions. There is a significant relationship between individuals mental wellness and their actions. An insane person cannot make a rational decision and thus should not be punished by the law. However, there must be sufficient expert evidence and advice to proof that an individual is suffering from mental illness before making any rulings.
Reference
Simpson, R., & Vasaly, M. (2011). The Amicus Brief: How to Write It and Use It Effectively. Chicago, Illinois: American Bar Association.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.