In order to evaluate the mental state of the accused and make sure that his actions were not inflicted by the specifics of his condition and, thus, exhausting every possibility of finding the man unable to account for his actions, one will have to carry out an MSO test (McLaughlin & Kan, 2014). The specified research, however, will have to be supported by the presence of several members of the local community. Particularly, the presence of at least five independent psychological experts from local healthcare organizations will be required, as the specified group will help confirm the correctness of the test results or specify whether some of the results delivered may be defined as generalized (Davis, Lurigio, & Herman, 2013).
Although the test is considered to be fairly self-sufficient and accurate, the presence of the group in question is essential to the approval of the test results. Seeing that it is a man’s life that is at stake in the case in point, it is crucial that every chance of identifying a possible mistake or miscalculation in the MSO test should be used. Thus, the threat of a mistrial can be minimized and the results acquired in the course of the test can be deemed as credible (Campbell, Patterson, & Fehler-Cabral, 2010).
It should also be borne in mind that, by collaborating with the experts mentioned above, one will be able to identify the environment, in which Bill lives. Particularly, the factors that may have enhanced his mental condition may be identified with the help of the experts in question. Seeing that the specialists mentioned above have been addressing the needs of the members of the community for quite a while, it will be relatively easy to establish the background of the defendant (Johnson, Fessler, Wilhelm, & Stepensky, 2014).
The significance of using the assistance of both psychologists and psychiatrists should also be brought up. Seeing that there is a strong need to identify not only the deviations in the defendant’s behavior but also the factors that may have affected the development of these deviations, the presence of both psychologists and psychiatrists is required. According to Gbadebo-Goyea et al. (2012), the significance of incorporating the opinions of both psychologists and psychiatrists is crucial to the accuracy of the data represented in the forensic analysis: “Collaborations between forensic psychiatrists and forensic psychologists can reduce potential compromise to the outcome of this case and maintain credibility in decision-making and discovery” (Gbadebo-Goyea et al., 2012, p. 1). By representing their opinions of the subject matter, psychiatrists will be able to provide a somatic basis for the conclusion, whereas their opponents will deliver psychology-based reasoning.
Additionally, the above-mentioned group will help make sure that the outcomes of the test should be evaluated in an objective manner. Despite professional characteristics of the forensic expert, the latter may develop a certain position regarding the subject matter; as a result, the process of results assessment may be jeopardized, and the evaluation outcomes may turn out to be biased. Herein the significance of the presence of the group under analysis lies; the people involved will provide their judgments, which the final verdict regarding the mental stability of the accused will be based on (Green, Carroll, & Brett, 2010). By using the assistance of five independent experts, one will be capable of making sure that no biases should take place in the course of the assessment.
Reference List
Campbell, R., Patterson, D., & Fehler-Cabral, G. (2010).Using ecological theory to evaluate the effectiveness of an indigenous community intervention: A study of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(3–4), 263–276. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Davis, R. C., Lurigio, A. J., & Herman, S. A. (2013). Providing services to victims of crime. In Victims of crime (4th ed.) (pp. 325-348). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Gbadebo-Goyea, E. A., Akpudo, H., Jackson, C. D., Wassef, T., Barker, N. C., Cunningham-Burley, R.,…, & Bailey, R. K. (2012). Collaboration: the paradigm of practice approach between the forensic psychiatrist and the forensic psychologist. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 3(89), 1–7.
Green, B., Carroll, A., & Brett, A. (2010). Structured risk assessment in community forensic mental health practice. Australasian Psychiatry, 18(6), 538–541. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Johnson, R., Fessler, A., Wilhelm, M., & Stepensky, A. (2014). Towards a Forensic Psychological Evaluation of Juvenile Fire Setters: Parent Power. Journal of Forensic Research, 5(1), 1–5.
McLaughlin, J. L., & Kan, L. Y. (2014). Test usage in four common types of forensic mental health assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(2), 128–135. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.