Please I need help ASAP

Psychological Evaluation Methodology

Psychological Evaluations

Introduction

Forensic evaluations are critical interventions that allow courts, civil, criminal and administrative proceedings to make clear correlations between psychological issues and legal issues. The four methods through which forensic evaluations have been applied in the past include, competency to confess, determination of sanity of an individual at the time they are charged with an offense, independent medical evaluations, and juvenile court evaluations. Each of these evaluations is meant to serve a specific civil, criminal or administrative quagmire wherein the psychological assessment of an individual is tied to validity, or invalidity of a criminal, civil or administrative offense.

Competency to Confess

In criminal law, it is necessary that a criminal suspect under investigation and trial be capable of participating in the due process. Competency in this sense is a reference to the mental state of mind of a defendant. Forensic scientists are often required to come and perform evaluations to determine said mental state. While finding a standardized psychological assessment has been a difficult task, some methods continue to be applied in criminal cases. One such method is the Miranda rights, named after the landmark case of Miranda vs. Arizona(1996) (Greenfield & Witt, 2005).

The decision of a criminal defendant to invoke their right to self-incrimination has come to be one of the most influential pieces of evidence in criminal proceedings. It was however noted that in some instances, the police have a significant input in influencing the decision of criminal defendants to make confessions (Greenfield & Witt, 2005). In the event a physiatrist discerns that the methods that were used in gaining a confession from a defendant directly affected their cognition, or was not voluntary as defined by the law, then the confession may be rendered inadmissible. There have been cases in the past, where the method of interrogation critically influenced the psychological independence of a suspect (Greenfield & Witt, 2005). Their confession, therefore, cannot be trusted in any court given the state of mind in which they were while giving said confession.

Determination of Sanity

Another important psychological evaluation is the determination of sanity at the time of committing a crime. Sanity implies that an individual was of sound mind when committing a criminal act and can, therefore, be held responsible for the consequence of their action. There are instances, however, where an individual was not in the right frame of mind when committing a crime (Psycholegal Assessments, Inc., 2017). For this reason, the legal questions the criminal responsibility that said the individual should be given. There has been a rise in the number of acquittals due to the determination of legal insanity at the time of committing a crime.

Some of the legally recognized tests for insanity include the M’Naghten Rule, which is a standard that looks at the possible mental disorder that a defendant may be ailing (Psycholegal Assessments, Inc., 2017). This test, however, exempts intoxication as a primary cause for sanity. Intake of alcohol or other hallucinogens does not warrant an insanity plea. Another test is the Irresistible Impulse Test, where a defendant can be found to have an inability to tell right from wrong

Independent Medical Evaluations

Civil cases often find themselves being liable for interpretation of psychological assessment. Independent Medical Evaluations (IMEs) are tests where psychologists look into the cause, extent and medical treatment (Psycholegal Assessments, Inc., 2017). This is however independent of a patient-therapist relationship as an independent medical professional is called to determine the liability issue in such cases. Some of the institutions and persons that can request for an independent medical exam include employers, insurance firms, and even lawyers.

Several reasons might warrant individuals to carry out independent medical evaluations. An example of such a situation is where an individual has been under medical treatment for a significant amount of time (Psycholegal Assessments, Inc., 2017). The medical treatment may have a direct impact on the cognitive and even psychological well-being of the individual. The consistent medication can also have induced permanent trauma. Psychologists undertaking IMEs re required to look into any preexisting conditions in an individual, perform clinical interviews, evaluate the course of their injury among other tests. These are all meant to determine that their psychological state was independent or dependent on a specific event in which injury was a consequence.

Through recent studies and observations IME is use as part of the elevation when he/ she has a physical or mental issue. The defendant will mostly obtain a medical or psychiatric evidence. The process begins with an expert who is usually hired by an outside source. Through my findings most of the examination is rarely use in an independent party. At times others by find this to be contradicting due to the fact the defendant is the one to pay for such as an exam.  This is where other supporting factors need to take place and do. 

In this case the defendant health comes into place which would require more testing. The focus however is to obtain information and expert opinion for the purpose of litigation, however not to provide with a second opinion. At this point in time the doctors are looking for General Appearance, Signs of Deception, Objective Manifestations of injury, Subjective Manifestation of injury, and Other Contributors Factors.   

General Appearance

General Appearance is another important factor during forensic evaluation. During such evaluation there are some key points that the examiner has to document for future reference. It is of a necessity that the examiner notes and document the current body appearance as well as the weight of the defendant. Another important area to note and document is the current mental status as well as grooming and hygiene of the defendant. These should be done upon meeting with the defendant for the first time.

Signs of Deception

Over the years, research has shown there is a high rate people who are deceptive especially during criminal investigation and as such it is important that during evaluation, a forensic psychologist is very familiar with the signs of deception. To be successful in identifying the signs of Deception it is important that the psychiatrics does encourage the defendant to say more during cross examination. As result of such encouragement, the examiner will be able to identify when the defendant is lying or being deceptive. In encouraging the defendant to say more, research shows that a defendant who is lying would often provide fewer details about time, location and things they heard (Laura Zimmerman. March 2016).

Subjective Manifestation of injury

 For this particular testing , the doctor at this time will perform exam that require the patient to provide subjective indications such as pain discomfort, sensitivity or insensitivity.  

Objective Manifestations of injury

  As for the Objective the doctor will and has to review all medical images such as MRI and brain scans as well as EMG nerve conduction studies. Some may say that this method is not  good use and can not with stand court, However from past cases such as the case of Stella VS. Smith (1981). 

Juvenile Court Evaluation

The juvenile justice system is another important institution where psychological assessments continue to play a significant role. There has been a significant increase in the number of children that grow up suffering mental disability (Geary, 2013). These children may sometimes find themselves within the juvenile justice system, without proper psychological evaluations. The juvenile courts have found that in some cases, the parents and guardians are not in a position to control the actions of their children and this has been attributed to mental health issues. Being able to address these issues from the onset, therefore, becomes a primary issue for which the juvenile justice system has taken up in the recent past.

It has been noted that delinquent youths are among some of the most difficult offenders that the justice system must rehabilitate. However, delinquents with mental health disorders have been one of the most challenging feats that the juvenile system has taken. Given that in the past, the system has failed to acknowledge the influence that mental health can have on underaged offenders, research indicates approximately 6% of the total juvenile offenders suffer from mental disabilities (Geary, 2013). It is important to note that the manner in which these persons interact with the justice system can have a lasting impact on the overall psychological and emotional well-being of offenders. Courts, therefore, have seen a growing interest in therapeutic jurisprudence, a movement that is meant to improve the interactions of offenders with the juvenile system.

Conclusion

Different psychological evaluations have been employed in the justice system to address issues in mental disorder. It has been noted that mental health is a central quality that separates offenders and persons that may need medical help. It is important that courts determine the psychological state in which offenders are to ensure that justice is served.

References

Geary, P. (2013). Juvenile Mental Health Courts and Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Facing Challenges Posed by Youth with Mental Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, 671-711.

Greenfield, D. P., & Witt, P. H. (2005). Evaluating Adult Miranda Waiver Competency. Journal of Psychiatric Law.

Psycholegal Assessments, Inc. (2017). Independent Medical Exam. Retrieved from https://psycholegalassessments.com/areas-of-expertise/independent-medical-examination-ime/

Psycholegal Assessments, Inc. (2017). Insanity Defense. Retrieved from Psycholegal Assessments, Inc.: https://psycholegalassessments.com/areas-of-expertise/criminal-responsibility-or-sanity-at-the-time-of-the-offense/