PSY 3100 Week 8 Critique

bdavis0613

Main

Home >Homework Answsers >Psychology homework help

PSY law

Instructions are attached

supporting doc attached

2 years ago
25.04.2024
5

Report issue

files (2)

Presentation_critique_form_Rev.docx
AmicusBrief.pptx

Presentation_critique_form_Rev.docx

Presenter’s Name:	Lila Davis
Person Providing Critique:	Brianna Davis
Component	Comments
Case summary: Case was summarized in a succinct, easy-to-understand manner and was in the presenter’s own words. I understood the issue confronting the Supreme Court.
APA’s brief: The APA’s stance was presented in an easy-to-understand manner. The presenter discussed relevant research included in the brief. It was clear how the APA was trying to contribute to the case.
Opinion: I understood the outcome of the case and the presenter made clear how this did/did not coincide with the APA’s goals in their brief.
Overall: This lecture was thorough, clear, interesting, and I learned something. The format was uncluttered and the length was appropriate. APA referencing was used properly and grammar/spelling was correct.

Directions: View the assigned PowerPoint presentations and fill out the form – one per each student’s presentation you are critiquing. For each component, write your comments. Write as much or as little as you feel necessary; the comments table should expand as you write. Remember, your critique will be graded as well – 25 points per critique. Due by Sunday at 11:59 P.M. ET.

AmicusBrief.pptx

Ford v. Wainwright

A lecture on the amicus brief

Lila Davis

Facts on the case

Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of murder in 1974 and sentenced to death in Florida

During the offence, trial, and sentencing Ford showed no signs of being mentally unwell

Ford was examined by two separate psychiatrists, both of which determined he was competent for execution

Facts on the Case

While awaiting execution Ford began to display behaviors consistent with a mental disorder

Ford was reexamined by three psychiatrists at the same time, consisting of a half hour conversation

All three psychiatrists found Ford to be psychotic and unable to understand why the death penalty was being applied to him

Facts about execution in Florida

Florida requires a competency examination to be done by three psychiatrists prior to execution

There was little to no definitions set for what is considered insane

No precedent had been set as to what happens if a person is deemed incompetent after sentencing

The Florida governor had the power to issue a decision on the case based on the psychiatrists he appointed to do the examination

Concerns

Is it constitutional to execute a mentally incompetent person?

Was ford's mental health properly examined and was he given the appropriate due process?

Is ford still eligible for execution now that he has been deemed mentally incompetent?

The amendments in question

The eighth amendment

protects against imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.

The fourteenth amendment

guarantees equal protection of the laws to all citizens

ensures that individuals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper legal procedures

Argument one

Those with questionable competency may not be executed without first having their competency determined through an accurate and reliable factfinding proceeding

The court has required that several steps are taken to ensure the sentence is understood by the condemned that were not taken in this case

The condemned has a right to accurate and reliable factfinding proceedings to ensure that capital punishment is a fit sentence which did not occur in this case

Argument one a

Accurate and reliable factfinding on the issue of mental competency requires an adversary hearing where the issue of competency is disputed

Before an execution, there must be a hearing, which Ford was not given

These hearings act as a safeguard to ensure competency

Argument one b

the assistance of mental health professionals in the evaluation and preparation of all issues relevant to determining condemned prisoners' competency is required

Providing such prisoners with independent mental health professionals who will conduct appropriate examinations challenge the findings of state experts and provide other relevant assistance will contribute to the adversarial debate and enhance the decisionmakers ability to make a reliable and informed determination

Argument one c

Accurate and reliable factfinding requires decisionmakers to specify in writing the factors relied upon in the making competency determinations

This ensures that death sentences are not imposed at will and forces decisionmakers to defend their reasons for imposing capital punishment

Argument two

In this case the procedures followed by the State of Florida in evaluating petitioner's competency to be executed failed to provide an accurate and reliable determination on the issue.

There were several steps that were not included in the petitioners case, meaning that he was failed to be provided meaningful assistance in the way of a hearing, competent mental health professionals, and legal aid

Conclusions

The eighth amendment protects a prisoner who has been deemed insane from being executed

Ford had been deemed insane and therefore cannot be executed

The fourteenth amendment ensures equal protection and proper legal procedures

Because of the poor quality in evaluations and the absence of a hearing ford was not put through equal and proper legal procedures

The APA requested that the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed

Court Opinion

With a five member majority the supreme court found that the Apa arguments were agreeable and that the eighth amendment prevented State from inflicting the death penalty upon a prisoner who is insane

Several justices agreed that Florida's statutory procedures for determining a condemned prisoner's sanity were inadequate and that ford was not given an adequate and fair hearing

Results

Overall it was decided ford did not receive due process and had not been afforded a full and fair hearing and did not have the opportunity to be heard

Even though there had not been a definition for insanity, it was decided a person must still be able to comprehend their punishment and why they are receiving it

The U.S supreme court also recognized the need for more comprehensive evaluative techniques

Impact

This case had an enormous impact on how the mentally ill are treated when facing execution

It set a precedent when it comes to competency evaluations and the ability to get a second opinion on mental health

The case set the expectation that the insane cannot be executed and are protected under the eighth amendment

References

American Psychological Association. (2024). Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/ford

Ford v. Wainwright (American Psychology Association October 1985). Retrieved April 21, 2024, from https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/ford.pdf.

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). Justia Law. (n.d.). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/477/399/#opinions

image2.png

image3.png

image4.jpeg

image5.jpeg

image1.png

AmicusBrief.pptx

Ford v. Wainwright

A lecture on the amicus brief

Lila Davis

Facts on the case

Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of murder in 1974 and sentenced to death in Florida

During the offence, trial, and sentencing Ford showed no signs of being mentally unwell

Ford was examined by two separate psychiatrists, both of which determined he was competent for execution

Facts on the Case

While awaiting execution Ford began to display behaviors consistent with a mental disorder

Ford was reexamined by three psychiatrists at the same time, consisting of a half hour conversation

All three psychiatrists found Ford to be psychotic and unable to understand why the death penalty was being applied to him

Facts about execution in Florida

Florida requires a competency examination to be done by three psychiatrists prior to execution

There was little to no definitions set for what is considered insane

No precedent had been set as to what happens if a person is deemed incompetent after sentencing

The Florida governor had the power to issue a decision on the case based on the psychiatrists he appointed to do the examination

Concerns

Is it constitutional to execute a mentally incompetent person?

Was ford's mental health properly examined and was he given the appropriate due process?

Is ford still eligible for execution now that he has been deemed mentally incompetent?

The amendments in question

The eighth amendment

protects against imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.

The fourteenth amendment

guarantees equal protection of the laws to all citizens

ensures that individuals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper legal procedures

Argument one

Those with questionable competency may not be executed without first having their competency determined through an accurate and reliable factfinding proceeding

The court has required that several steps are taken to ensure the sentence is understood by the condemned that were not taken in this case

The condemned has a right to accurate and reliable factfinding proceedings to ensure that capital punishment is a fit sentence which did not occur in this case

Argument one a

Accurate and reliable factfinding on the issue of mental competency requires an adversary hearing where the issue of competency is disputed

Before an execution, there must be a hearing, which Ford was not given

These hearings act as a safeguard to ensure competency

Argument one b

the assistance of mental health professionals in the evaluation and preparation of all issues relevant to determining condemned prisoners' competency is required

Argument one c

Accurate and reliable factfinding requires decisionmakers to specify in writing the factors relied upon in the making competency determinations

This ensures that death sentences are not imposed at will and forces decisionmakers to defend their reasons for imposing capital punishment

Argument two

In this case the procedures followed by the State of Florida in evaluating petitioner's competency to be executed failed to provide an accurate and reliable determination on the issue.

Conclusions

The eighth amendment protects a prisoner who has been deemed insane from being executed

Ford had been deemed insane and therefore cannot be executed

The fourteenth amendment ensures equal protection and proper legal procedures

Because of the poor quality in evaluations and the absence of a hearing ford was not put through equal and proper legal procedures

The APA requested that the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed

Court Opinion

With a five member majority the supreme court found that the Apa arguments were agreeable and that the eighth amendment prevented State from inflicting the death penalty upon a prisoner who is insane

Several justices agreed that Florida's statutory procedures for determining a condemned prisoner's sanity were inadequate and that ford was not given an adequate and fair hearing

Results

Overall it was decided ford did not receive due process and had not been afforded a full and fair hearing and did not have the opportunity to be heard

Even though there had not been a definition for insanity, it was decided a person must still be able to comprehend their punishment and why they are receiving it

The U.S supreme court also recognized the need for more comprehensive evaluative techniques

Impact

This case had an enormous impact on how the mentally ill are treated when facing execution

It set a precedent when it comes to competency evaluations and the ability to get a second opinion on mental health

The case set the expectation that the insane cannot be executed and are protected under the eighth amendment

References

American Psychological Association. (2024). Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/ford

Ford v. Wainwright (American Psychology Association October 1985). Retrieved April 21, 2024, from https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/ford.pdf.

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). Justia Law. (n.d.). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/477/399/#opinions

image2.png

image3.png

image4.jpeg

image5.jpeg

image1.png

Presentation_critique_form_Rev.docx

Presenter’s Name:	Lila Davis
Person Providing Critique:	Brianna Davis
Component	Comments
Case summary: Case was summarized in a succinct, easy-to-understand manner and was in the presenter’s own words. I understood the issue confronting the Supreme Court.
APA’s brief: The APA’s stance was presented in an easy-to-understand manner. The presenter discussed relevant research included in the brief. It was clear how the APA was trying to contribute to the case.
Opinion: I understood the outcome of the case and the presenter made clear how this did/did not coincide with the APA’s goals in their brief.
Overall: This lecture was thorough, clear, interesting, and I learned something. The format was uncluttered and the length was appropriate. APA referencing was used properly and grammar/spelling was correct.

AmicusBrief.pptx

Ford v. Wainwright

A lecture on the amicus brief

Lila Davis

Facts on the case

Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of murder in 1974 and sentenced to death in Florida

During the offence, trial, and sentencing Ford showed no signs of being mentally unwell

Ford was examined by two separate psychiatrists, both of which determined he was competent for execution

Facts on the Case

While awaiting execution Ford began to display behaviors consistent with a mental disorder

Ford was reexamined by three psychiatrists at the same time, consisting of a half hour conversation

All three psychiatrists found Ford to be psychotic and unable to understand why the death penalty was being applied to him

Facts about execution in Florida

Florida requires a competency examination to be done by three psychiatrists prior to execution

There was little to no definitions set for what is considered insane

No precedent had been set as to what happens if a person is deemed incompetent after sentencing

The Florida governor had the power to issue a decision on the case based on the psychiatrists he appointed to do the examination

Concerns

Is it constitutional to execute a mentally incompetent person?

Was ford's mental health properly examined and was he given the appropriate due process?

Is ford still eligible for execution now that he has been deemed mentally incompetent?

The amendments in question

The eighth amendment

protects against imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.

The fourteenth amendment

guarantees equal protection of the laws to all citizens

ensures that individuals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper legal procedures

Argument one

Those with questionable competency may not be executed without first having their competency determined through an accurate and reliable factfinding proceeding

The court has required that several steps are taken to ensure the sentence is understood by the condemned that were not taken in this case

The condemned has a right to accurate and reliable factfinding proceedings to ensure that capital punishment is a fit sentence which did not occur in this case

Argument one a

Accurate and reliable factfinding on the issue of mental competency requires an adversary hearing where the issue of competency is disputed

Before an execution, there must be a hearing, which Ford was not given

These hearings act as a safeguard to ensure competency

Argument one b

the assistance of mental health professionals in the evaluation and preparation of all issues relevant to determining condemned prisoners' competency is required

Argument one c

Accurate and reliable factfinding requires decisionmakers to specify in writing the factors relied upon in the making competency determinations

This ensures that death sentences are not imposed at will and forces decisionmakers to defend their reasons for imposing capital punishment

Argument two

In this case the procedures followed by the State of Florida in evaluating petitioner's competency to be executed failed to provide an accurate and reliable determination on the issue.

Conclusions

The eighth amendment protects a prisoner who has been deemed insane from being executed

Ford had been deemed insane and therefore cannot be executed

The fourteenth amendment ensures equal protection and proper legal procedures

Because of the poor quality in evaluations and the absence of a hearing ford was not put through equal and proper legal procedures

The APA requested that the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed

Court Opinion

With a five member majority the supreme court found that the Apa arguments were agreeable and that the eighth amendment prevented State from inflicting the death penalty upon a prisoner who is insane

Several justices agreed that Florida's statutory procedures for determining a condemned prisoner's sanity were inadequate and that ford was not given an adequate and fair hearing

Results

Overall it was decided ford did not receive due process and had not been afforded a full and fair hearing and did not have the opportunity to be heard

Even though there had not been a definition for insanity, it was decided a person must still be able to comprehend their punishment and why they are receiving it

The U.S supreme court also recognized the need for more comprehensive evaluative techniques

Impact

This case had an enormous impact on how the mentally ill are treated when facing execution

It set a precedent when it comes to competency evaluations and the ability to get a second opinion on mental health

The case set the expectation that the insane cannot be executed and are protected under the eighth amendment

References

American Psychological Association. (2024). Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/ford

Ford v. Wainwright (American Psychology Association October 1985). Retrieved April 21, 2024, from https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/ford.pdf.

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). Justia Law. (n.d.). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/477/399/#opinions

image2.png

image3.png

image4.jpeg

image5.jpeg

image1.png

Presentation_critique_form_Rev.docx

Presenter’s Name:	Lila Davis
Person Providing Critique:	Brianna Davis
Component	Comments
Case summary: Case was summarized in a succinct, easy-to-understand manner and was in the presenter’s own words. I understood the issue confronting the Supreme Court.
APA’s brief: The APA’s stance was presented in an easy-to-understand manner. The presenter discussed relevant research included in the brief. It was clear how the APA was trying to contribute to the case.
Opinion: I understood the outcome of the case and the presenter made clear how this did/did not coincide with the APA’s goals in their brief.
Overall: This lecture was thorough, clear, interesting, and I learned something. The format was uncluttered and the length was appropriate. APA referencing was used properly and grammar/spelling was correct.

AmicusBrief.pptx

Ford v. Wainwright

A lecture on the amicus brief

Lila Davis

Facts on the case

Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of murder in 1974 and sentenced to death in Florida

During the offence, trial, and sentencing Ford showed no signs of being mentally unwell

Ford was examined by two separate psychiatrists, both of which determined he was competent for execution

Facts on the Case

While awaiting execution Ford began to display behaviors consistent with a mental disorder

Ford was reexamined by three psychiatrists at the same time, consisting of a half hour conversation

All three psychiatrists found Ford to be psychotic and unable to understand why the death penalty was being applied to him

Facts about execution in Florida

Florida requires a competency examination to be done by three psychiatrists prior to execution

There was little to no definitions set for what is considered insane

No precedent had been set as to what happens if a person is deemed incompetent after sentencing

The Florida governor had the power to issue a decision on the case based on the psychiatrists he appointed to do the examination

Concerns

Is it constitutional to execute a mentally incompetent person?

Was ford's mental health properly examined and was he given the appropriate due process?

Is ford still eligible for execution now that he has been deemed mentally incompetent?

The amendments in question

The eighth amendment

protects against imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.

The fourteenth amendment

guarantees equal protection of the laws to all citizens

ensures that individuals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper legal procedures

Argument one

Those with questionable competency may not be executed without first having their competency determined through an accurate and reliable factfinding proceeding

The court has required that several steps are taken to ensure the sentence is understood by the condemned that were not taken in this case

The condemned has a right to accurate and reliable factfinding proceedings to ensure that capital punishment is a fit sentence which did not occur in this case

Argument one a

Accurate and reliable factfinding on the issue of mental competency requires an adversary hearing where the issue of competency is disputed

Before an execution, there must be a hearing, which Ford was not given

These hearings act as a safeguard to ensure competency

Argument one b

the assistance of mental health professionals in the evaluation and preparation of all issues relevant to determining condemned prisoners' competency is required

Argument one c

Accurate and reliable factfinding requires decisionmakers to specify in writing the factors relied upon in the making competency determinations

This ensures that death sentences are not imposed at will and forces decisionmakers to defend their reasons for imposing capital punishment

Argument two

In this case the procedures followed by the State of Florida in evaluating petitioner's competency to be executed failed to provide an accurate and reliable determination on the issue.

Conclusions

The eighth amendment protects a prisoner who has been deemed insane from being executed

Ford had been deemed insane and therefore cannot be executed

The fourteenth amendment ensures equal protection and proper legal procedures

Because of the poor quality in evaluations and the absence of a hearing ford was not put through equal and proper legal procedures

The APA requested that the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed

Court Opinion

With a five member majority the supreme court found that the Apa arguments were agreeable and that the eighth amendment prevented State from inflicting the death penalty upon a prisoner who is insane

Several justices agreed that Florida's statutory procedures for determining a condemned prisoner's sanity were inadequate and that ford was not given an adequate and fair hearing

Results

Overall it was decided ford did not receive due process and had not been afforded a full and fair hearing and did not have the opportunity to be heard

Even though there had not been a definition for insanity, it was decided a person must still be able to comprehend their punishment and why they are receiving it

The U.S supreme court also recognized the need for more comprehensive evaluative techniques

Impact

This case had an enormous impact on how the mentally ill are treated when facing execution

It set a precedent when it comes to competency evaluations and the ability to get a second opinion on mental health

The case set the expectation that the insane cannot be executed and are protected under the eighth amendment

References

American Psychological Association. (2024). Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/ford

Ford v. Wainwright (American Psychology Association October 1985). Retrieved April 21, 2024, from https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/ford.pdf.

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). Justia Law. (n.d.). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/477/399/#opinions