Please I need help ASAP

Competence to Stand Trial – Estella vs. Smith

Forensic psychology can be described to encompass both sides of the justice which is civil and criminal together with two brad aspects of psychology which as well consist of clinical and experimental. In essence, the psychologists had been slow when it comes to making a decision on whether there is a need to stand outside of the system to study or to critique and change or to embrace the study and employ it. By the law, it is denoted to be tentative and how it will be used to grant access to the psychologists (Del, Ritter, & Witt, 31). This study seeks to analyze the reasoning behind the supreme court decisions which are relevant to forensic psychology.

Supreme court having the ability to determine whether an individual is guilty or not for the alleged offenses labeled against him or she is a continuous process which needs also psychology. It is worth noting that for the individuals, the ability to know the difference which exists between right and wrong is something that we all grew up learning (Del, Ritter, & Witt, 31).

In other individuals, the lesson begins when we are young, where some belief as a young child we have the capability of understanding. As we grow up the choice becomes ours. Here in the united states at the tender of age of eighteen, we are considered adult. We are able to choose where we live, go to school, our friends the company that we keep. For some; this is not the case (Smith, 24).

Consequently, for some, we as the people hold their freedom when they choose to do the wrong thing. For instance, “Estelle VS. Smith”. Here the choice of wrong and right plays a huge part as well as one sound state of mind. As we all know Mental Health is a big taboo and not many like to talk about it. Here, in this case, one’s right of mind comes into play. Now the real question is can forensic Psychology and can play the part.

It is worth noting that no individual is able to know or judge someone state of mind within a short time. In the world of Mental Health, all aspect of one being is taken into consideration. For instance, the day that Mr. Smith went in for evaluation. Mr. Smith himself has also been through a traumatic event, even though he was not the main victim. One may argue however that Mr. Smith can and should be labeled as one due to his current state of mind (Smith, 24).

With Forensic Psychology being allowed into the supreme court system, there needs to be a better system which will seek to understand each of the cases presented. A ninety minutes’ exam is not enough. As a clinician with a lot of experience as well as first-hand experience in the word of Mental Health, I can say it is a longer process than meets the eye (Levy, Karst, & Winkler, 161).

In the mental health field, it is worth noting that in order for an individual to receive a full psychological evaluation, there is a process which is much longer than ninety minutes. In my opinion, I do believe that for one to be sentenced to death due to an armed robbery crime that results in the death of another then such a defendant should be given an opportunity to receive a full psychiatric evaluation by a competent psychiatrist.

During the evaluation, the psychiatrists will and should be able to assess the defendant by looking through his background as well as challenges that might have been faced when growing up. Personally, I do think that if the psychiatrists who evaluated Mr. Smith did look into his background if he finds some information that might be able to alleviate the death sentence (Levy, Karst, & Winkler, 161).

According to David Surface in Social Work Today, for a client to be fully competent to stand trial, there are two major processes involved. The first being an ability for the client to know and most importantly understand the severity of charges being held against him. The client should be able to differentiate between pleading guilty or not as well as understand what it means to accept a plea bargain. The client needs to understand right or wrong (Adams, Wordsworth, & Smith, 103).

The second that is involved in understanding a client competency to stand trial is the question of whether or not the client is able to work hand in hand with his legal team. If the client is unable to play an active role in his trial, then the client competency level to stand trial should be questioned. And in doing so this process should take some weeks and not ninety minutes. As for Estella vs. Smith, Mr. Smith was not tried fairly as his Fifth Amendment right was violated. According to his case file, he was not informed that he had the ability to remain silent and that any statement uttered can be used against during the trial if found guilty.

Coherently, it was held that the admission of the testimony of the doctors at the phase of penalty was violating the fifth amendment of the defendant who are privileged against the compelled self-discrimination since they were not advised regarding the psychiatric examination prior to holding the right of remaining silent so that what they are made could be used against them in the court of law in the proceedings (In Jeste, In Palmer, & American Psychiatric Publishing, 96).

It was also depicted that the case had no basis for distinguishing between the guilt and the penalty since the defendant which faced trial had the protection from the Fifth Amendment with the privilege being of great concern. The attempt of the state to determine whether the defendant was still a danger to others by using statements he made unwarned while being examined by the doctor violated the fifth amendment right as much as if he was coerced to testifying against his will at the sentence hearing.

For the supreme court, they emphasize so much on the fifth amendment which is a privilege to get involved directly with them since the states use the evidence against the defendants with the substance of the disclosures during psychiatric examination conducted prior to trial taking place of the alleged criminals. The fact is that the statements produced by the defendant were made in a context which does not automatically remove them from the reach of the amendment (Adams, Wordsworth, & Smith, 103).

Therefore, the considerations pertaining to the case of Estelle versus Smith can be depicted to be a calling for the accused to be warned before the interrogation of the custodial with less force to the pretrial psychiatric examination by the doctor. It is worth noting that the accused who was neither an initiate of the evaluation of psychiatry and the attempt to introduce the evidence could not be used in capital sentencing with the court order that the sentencing precedent (In Jeste, In Palmer, & American Psychiatric Publishing, 96).

In summing up, it is coherent that Supreme court having the ability to determine whether an individual is guilty or not for the alleged offenses labeled against him or she is a continuous process which needs also psychology. With Forensic Psychology being allowed into the supreme court system, there needs to be a better system which will seek to understand each of the cases presented. A ninety minutes’ exam is not enough. As a clinician with a lot of experience as well as first-hand experience in the word of Mental Health, I can say it is a longer process than meets the eye. During the evaluation, the psychiatrists will and should be able to assess the defendant by looking through his background as well as challenges that might have been faced when growing up. Personally, I do think that if the psychiatrists who evaluated Mr. Smith did look into his background if he finds some information that might be able to alleviate the death sentence.

References

· Adams, E. D., et al. The Illustrated floral text book: Being a birthday book of flowers and their language : with selections from the poets. John Walker, 2010.

· Del, C. R., et al. Briefs of Leading Cases in Corrections. Taylor and Francis, 2011.

· In Jeste, D. V., et al. Positive psychiatry: A clinical handbook. 2015.

· Levy, L. W., et al. Encyclopedia of the American constitution. Macmillan Reference USA, 2010.

· Smith, C. E. The Supreme Court and the development of law: Through the prism of prisoners' rights. 2016.