Carrying out an evaluation of a mental state of a person charged with murder is an essential step towards facilitating a fair trial and making sure that the capacities of the person in question, as well as their intentions and the understanding of what happened, are incorporated into the context of the trial (Campbell, Patterson, & Fehler-Cabral, 2010). In other words, a psychological assessment of Bill, the person accused of a first-degree murder (Hemmens & Klein, 2012), is crucial to the fairness of the trial and the feasibility of the verdict to be passed.
The rationale for choosing the tool in question is quite obvious; seeing that Bill has been displaying certain deviations from regular behavioral patterns, it will be legitimate to assume that he might be suffering from a mental condition that could have affected his actions in the above-mentioned case. Particularly, the fact that Bill has been described positively by his coach and teachers yet has also been reported as being depressed after the death of his grandmother. The fact that he stopped taking care of himself at some point, being reluctant to change his clothes, shows that Bill may have a mental condition that could have affected his actions on the day of murder yet allow him to display rather typical behavioral patterns and carry out regular communications in an adequate manner. Therefore, there are solid premises for conducting an in-depth study of Bill’s mental capacities (Green, Carroll, & Brett, 2010).
Particularly, the specified tool will create premises for the assessment of the accused in the areas such as his ability to coordinate his actions and be responsible for them all the time (Jennings & Bell, 2010). Indeed, studies show that some forms of mental disabilities may occur at a rather uneven pace, allowing the people suffering from these disorders to act rather adequately on a regular basis, yet become completely uncontrollable in specific situations or when under certain conditions (Davis, Lurigio, & Herman, 2013). Allowing to “to determine whether (and to what extent) the defendant’s understanding of the nature and/or wrongfulness of his or her actions was impaired as a result of a mental disease or defect” (McLaughlin, & Kan, 2014, p. 129), the tool in question can be viewed as a rather legitimate method of the evaluation of Bill’s mental state. In other words, the specified approach will help define out whether Bill can be fully aware of his actions and, therefore, be responsible for them all the time (McLaughlin & Kan, 2014).
Seeing that it is the discrepancy between the seemingly regular behavioral patterns that the accused displays and the actions that he took in the crime scene, which allow questioning Bill’s mental stability, it is crucial that every single chance should be used to make sure that the test results have been interpreted in a proper manner and that every possibility for determining deviations in the defendant’s mental stability should be used. The opinions of the independent experts mentioned above, in their turn, can be viewed as solid proof of the correctness of the test results, or the lack thereof. Moreover, the specified group will help determine the ecology of the environment, in which Bill grew up, therefore, contributing to a better understanding of the man’s intentions, actions and mental state (Green et al., 2010).
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.
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.
Hemmens, G., & Klein, M. (2012). Recent legal developments: Criminal justice decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, 2013 term. Criminal Justice Review, 39(4), 466–479.
Jennings, J. L., & Bell, J. D. (2010). The “ROC” model: Psychiatric evaluation, stabilization and restoration of competency in a jail setting. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Mental illnesses – Evaluation, treatments and implications (77–88). Rijeka: InTech.
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.