Assignment 2: LASA: Assault in the City: Trial, Sentencing, and Appeal
sldphaneemincon85
M5Assignment2LASASubmission-SubmitAssignment.docx|
Assignment 2: LASA: Assault in the City: Trial, Sentencing, and Appeal Click here to study a vignette. Tasks: On the basis of the vignette you read, write a paper supported by appropriate, peer-reviewed sources and case law that responds to the following: · Define risk of dangerousness and discuss the relevant landmark court cases relevant to this psycho-legal issue. · Discuss the relevance of the defendant’s age to a risk of dangerousness assessment. · Describe the elements or issues that a mental health professional usually focuses on when assessing a person’s risk of dangerousness. · On the basis of the information you have from the vignette, provide an opinion on the defendant's risk of dangerousness. · Define insanity and discuss the relevant landmark court cases relevant to this psycho-legal issue. · Discuss the relevance, if any, of the defendant’s age to a determination of mental status at the time of the offense. · Describe the elements or issues that a mental health professional usually focuses on when assessing a person’s mental status at the time of the offense. · Discuss the potential ethical concerns that may be encountered by a forensic professional in the evaluation and assessment of each of these psycho-legal issues. · Discuss the potential impact of an individual’s culture in the evaluation and assessment of each of these psycho-legal issues. · On the basis of the information you have from the vignette, provide an opinion on the defendant's likelihood of using an insanity defense. Use resources from professional literature to support your analysis. The professional literature may include the Argosy University online library resources; relevant textbooks; peer-reviewed journal articles; and websites created by professional organizations, agencies, or institutions (.edu, .org, and .gov). All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules for attributing sources. Submission Details: · By the due date assigned,save your paper as M5_A2_Lastname_Firstname.doc and submit it to the Submissions Area. This LASA is worth 300 points and will be graded according to the following rubric.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Due Date |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sep 3, 2018 11:59 PM |
Rubric Name: FP6010_M5A2_Grading_Rubric
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.Assignment 2 Grading Criteria
Maximum Points
GR1 Describe the psycho-legal standards and/or definitions for risk of dangerousness and insanity.
64 points
/ 64
GR2 Identify and describe one or more landmark case(s) for each standard (at least two cases total).
64 points
/ 64
GR3 On the basis of the information from the vignette, provide an opinion on the defendant's risk of dangerousness and insanity.
64 points
/ 64
GR4 Discuss the potential ethical concerns that may be encountered by a forensic professional in the evaluation and assessment of each of these psycholegal issues.
40 points
/ 40
GR5 Discuss the potential impact of an individual’s culture in the evaluation and assessment of each of these psycholegal issues.
40 points
/ 40
GR6 Writing is generally clear and in an organized manner. It demonstrates ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources; and generally displays accurate spelling, grammar, punctuation. Errors are few, isolated, and do not inter
28 points
/ 28
Total
— / 300
Overall Feedback
|
|
|
Rubric Name: FP6010_M5A2_LASA Rubric
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.MAFP_PO2_Legal Theory & Application
Level 1 Unsatisfactory
0 points
0 %
Level 2 Emerging
0 points
0 %
Level 3 Proficient
0 points
0 %
Level 4 Exemplary
0 points
0 %
C1 PsychoLegal Standards (PO2).
No description of the psycho-legal standards was provided.
The description of the psycholegal standards provided is vague.
The description and definitions provided were brief, yet clear and accurately stated.
The descriptions and definitions provided by the student were both detailed and accurate demonstrating a strong grasp of the psycholegal issues.
C2 Landmark Case Identification (PO2).
There is no discussion of relevant landmark cases for each psycho-legal issue.
The discussion of the landmark cases was vague.
The discussion of the landmark cases was brief yet clear and accurately stated.
The discussion of the landmark cases was detailed and accurately stated demonstrating a strong grasp of the material.
C3 Risk Analysis of Dangerousness/Insanity (PO2).
There was no opinion provided on the defendant’s risk of dangerousness or insanity.
The opinion provided was vague and not well connected to the case vignette.
The opinion provided was brief yet clearly and accurately related to the case vignette.
The opinion provided was detailed and accurately related to the case vignette demonstrating a strong grasp of the relevant case law.
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.MAFP_PO4_Leadership, Consultation, & Ethics
Level 1 Unsatisfactory
0 points
0 %
Level 2 Emerging
0 points
0 %
Level 3 Proficient
0 points
0 %
Level 4 Exemplary
0 points
0 %
C4 Ethical Concerns (PO4).
No discussion of the potential ethical issues was provided.
The discussion of potential ethical issues was vague and not well connected to the case vignette.
The discussion provided was brief yet clear and accurately related to the case vignette.
The discussion provided was detailed, clear, and accurately related to the case vignette and demonstrated a strong grasp of the material.
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.MAFP_PO5_Multicultural Competence
Level 1 Unsatisfactory
0 points
0 %
Level 2 Emerging
0 points
0 %
Level 3 Proficient
0 points
0 %
Level 4 Exemplary
0 points
0 %
C5 Cultural Considerations (PO5).
No discussion of the role of the defendant’s culture was provided.
The discussion of the impact of the defendant’s culture was vague and not well connected to the case vignette.
The discussion of the impact of the defendant’s culture was brief yet clear and accurately related to the case vignette.
The discussion of the impact of the defendant’s culture was detailed, clear, and accurately related to the case vignette and demonstrated a strong grasp of the material.
Total
Overall Feedback
|
|
|
|
Associated Learning Objectives |
|
|
| |
|
|
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria - C1 Psycho-Legal Standards (PO2). |
|
|
Required Performance: Level 3 Proficient |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria - C2 Landmark Case Identification (PO2). |
|
|
Required Performance: Level 3 Proficient |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria - C3 Risk Analysis of Dangerousness/Insanity (PO2). |
|
|
Required Performance: Level 3 Proficient |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria - C4 Ethical Concerns (PO4). |
|
|
Required Performance: Level 3 Proficient |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria - C5 Cultural Considerations (PO5). |
|
|
Required Performance: Level 3 Proficient |
|
|
|
Submit Assignment
|
Files to submit |
|
|
(0) file(s) to submit After uploading, you must click Submit to complete the submission.
|
0
