Fluent Essays

A minimum of  3 scholarly peered reviewed article  must be sited using APA format 500 words for each topic 83 and 84    Topic 8 DQ1 Ethical issues can arise between psychology and the legal system. What are some examples of ethical issues arising between these two entities? Use examples from this weeks required readings to support your claims. Consider the Christian principles of ethics and read the GCU Statement on the Integration of Faith and Work. How might a person with the Christian worldview address the ethical issues you provided? Topic 8 DQ2 Compare the legal definition of insanity with the psychological concept of mentally ill. What guiding principles and tools are used by psychologists to determine if a client meets or does not meet the legal definition of insanity? What are the limitations of these methods?Criminal Responsibility Evaluations: Role of Psychologists in Assessment Murray Ferguson and James R.P. Ogloff Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Monash University and Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, Australia The defence of insanity has been in existence for centuries, but it underwent a significant reformulation in English law in the first half of the 19th century. Since that time it has remained largely unchanged. Since its inception, expert evidence in these cases has primarily been the domain of medicine. In spite of this, more recently psychology has been gaining acceptance in this field of mental health and law. Victorian legislation allows for the assessment of mental impairment to be undertaken by psychologists but some courts have been trepidatious in allowing it. The aim of this article is to outline the role that psychologists can and do play in the evaluation of those who plead that they are not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Key words: assessment; criminal responsibility; insanity; mental impairment; psychologist. What I have That might your nature honour and exception Roughly awake, I here proclaim was Madness Wasn’t Hamlet wronged Laertes? Never Hamlet If Hamlet from himself be ta’en away, And when he’s not himself does wrong Laertes, Then Hamlet does it not. Hamlet denies it Who does it then? His Madness —Shakespeare (Hamlet) The idea that one is not responsible for one’s actions when the actions are the product of mental illness, such that they cannot appreciate the nature of their actions, has in one form or another been in existence for centuries (Ogloff, Roberts, & Roesch, 1993). Under law, except for strict liability offences, to be found guilty of a criminal act one must not only have voluntarily committed the act (actus reus), but also have had the capacity to under- stand the criminality of the act, or form the intent to commit a criminal act (mens rea). ‘‘Insanity’’ is a legal term and not a psychiatric or psychological one. It implies that, because of the effects of mental illness on one’s cognitive process, one cannot form the intent to commit a criminal act or, if intent is formed, it is formed on the basis of irrational thinking caused by the mental illness. Criminal intent is not negated by virtue of having a mental illness or even experiencing specific symptoms of such. It is negated only when such illness renders a person unable to appreciate or understand the nature of their behaviour. Although the use of the insanity defence in England existed before the 18th century, it Correspondence: James R. P. Ogloff, 505 Hoddle Street, Clifton Hill, Victoria 3068, Australia. Email: [email protected] Psychiatry, Psychology and Law Vol. 18, No. 1, February 2011, 79–94 ISSN 1321-8719 print/ISSN 1934-1687 online � 2011 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2010.482952 http://www.informaworld.com was STATEMENT ON THE INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND WORK A s a university, we believe that the message of Jesus Christ bears profound implications, not only for individuals, but also for society and the ways that we as individuals live within it. The Lord Jesus instructed His followers to live as salt and light within society, which implies a call to live out our lives in ways that contribute to the common good. We are convinced that this call extends to the workplace and that our respective vocations represent vital opportunities to glorify God by serving others in ways that promote human flourishing. Therefore, by God’s grace, we seek to distinguish ourselves as a university by instilling a sense of vocational calling and purpose in our students, faculty and staff in accord with the following principles: WE BELIEVE that God’s Word speaks authoritatively about creation, fall and redemption as well as the restoration of all things through Christ Jesus. Therefore, we are convinced that the Christian worldview offers hope of restoration, not only for individuals, but also for families, communities and societies in which individuals live, work and serve one another. WE BELIEVE that God the Almighty created the world, placed human beings within it and blessed them by making them responsible for cultivating and caring for creation. Therefore, we are assured that our work within the world matters to God and our neighbors, and that we honor God by serving others in ways that promote human flourishing. WE BELIEVE that Jesus Christ is both Savior and Lord and that all who follow Jesus should seek His Kingdom and His righteousness in relation to all aspects of human experience, including culture and society. Therefore, we have resolved to carry out our work within the public arena with compassion, justice and concern for the common good. WE BELIEVE that Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection secured abundant and eternal life for all who believe and that Christ transforms all that we say and do. Therefore, we are convinced that Grand Canyon University should positively impact those who study at, work for and live near the university in ways that accord with the teachings of Jesus Christ. WE BELIEVE that mankind was originally created in the image of God and given responsibility over creation, but that all have failed to fulfill their God-given purpose and responsibility. We believe that God redeems and restores men and women in Christ, creating them anew for the good works He has prepared them to do. Therefore, we are confident that the work we do is a part of God’s calling on our lives and a means by which we can glorify God as we meet others’ needs. WE BELIEVE that regeneration by the Holy Spirit is essential for salvation and that the work of God’s Spirit in the human heart invariably results in renewed purpose and the growth of Christ-like love for neighbors and neighborhoods. Therefore, we are certain that God Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Law and Psychiatry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijlawpsy Forensic mental health evaluations in the Guantánamo military commissions system: An analysis of all detainee cases from inception to 2018 Neil Krishan Aggarwal⁎ Clinical Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, Committee on Global Thought, Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, United States A B S T R A C T Even though the Bush Administration opened the Guantánamo Bay detention facility in 2002 in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, little remains known about how forensic mental health evaluations relate to the process of detainees who are charged before military commissions. This article discusses the laws governing Guantánamos military commissions system and mental health evaluations. Notably, the US government initially treated detainees as “unlawful enemy combatants” who were not protected under the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, allowing for the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” In subsequent legal documents, however, the US government has excluded evidence obtained through torture, as defined by the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Using open-source document analysis, this article describes the reasons and outcomes of all forensic mental health evaluations from Guantánamos opening to 2018. Only thirty of 779 detainees (~3.85\%) have ever had charges referred against them to the military commissions, and only nine detainees (~1.16\%) have ever received forensic mental health evaluations pertaining to their case. Of these nine detainees, six have alleged mental torture while in US custody. This paper shows that leaders in the United States and Europe should consider whether counterterrorism policies that supersede traditional health and human rights complicate the ability of future governments to prosecute cases when successive leaders change laws, a pertinent consideration as North American and European states grapple with the return of foreign fighters. 1. Introduction This article describes how forensic mental health evaluations fit within the legal process of all cases that have been processed through Guantánamos military commissions system from 2006 to October 2018. The United States Congress (2006) passed the Military Commis- sions Act of 2006 (also known as “MCA 2006”) so that these commis- sions at Guantánamo could try any “unlawful enemy combatant” for war crimes. Since the passage of this act, only one study (Aggarwal, 2015) has examined how mental health has been invoked in detainee cases before the military commissions system. This study is now dated since the American government passed new laws and statutes in 2016. Moreover, that study took a random sample of cases ratPSYCHIATRY REVIEW ARTICLE published: 01 December 2014 doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00172 Frendak to Phenis to Breivik: an examination of the imposed insanity defense William Donald Richie*, Farzana Alam, Lalitha Gazula, Harold Embrack , Milankumar Nathani and Rahn Kennedy Bailey Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, USA Edited by: Roy O’Shaughnessy, University of British Columbia, Canada Reviewed by: George Seiden, George Seiden Medical Corporation, USA Elizabeth Hogan, Regents University, USA *Correspondence: William Donald Richie, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, USA e-mail: [email protected] The imposition of the insanity defense is a complicated psycho-legal scenario. Globally, def- initions of insanity differ from country to country. In a multitude of cases, a determination of insanity at the time of a criminal act means the offender will not be considered responsible for his or her action(s). In many jurisdictions, concerns have been raised that the insanity defense has been used to mitigate punishment, usually after a particularly heinous crime. In this review, the authors use three cases – Frendak, Phenis, and Breivik to demonstrate how the imposition of the insanity defense has been used for legal purposes in the past and present. In an effort to give more background to each of the above-mentioned cases, the writers have provided some details to aid comprehension. The authors offer recommenda- tions for the ethical forensic evaluator unburdened by partisan allegiance and invested in the search for truth. This review article relies on peer-reviewed articles available from PubMed, Meharry Online Library, and legal dictionaries. We also cross-referenced reputable news sources to ensure the validity of the facts we present. Keywords: Frendak vs. United States, Phenis vs. United States, Breivik case, insanity defense, jurisdictions INTRODUCTION Societies , in the main, believe that criminals should be punished for their crimes. At the same time, societies also advocate that laws should not punish defendants who are mentally ill and inca- pable of understanding and knowing that their actions were wrong and/or were unable to control their conduct (McNaughton Stan- dard, American Library of Law). In this way, the insanity defense reflects a compromise on the part of society and the law (1). The legal definition of insanity is “a condition which renders the affected person unfit to enjoy the liberty of action because of the unreliability of his behavior with concomitant danger to himself and others” [Ref. (2), p. 794]. Importantly, insanity is not the same as low intelligence or mental deficiency due to age or injury. The legal proceedings following a defense of insanity require psychi- atric/medical input to determine whether the defendant be placed in a penal institution or mental-health facility for treatment. In a criminal case, theInternational Journal of Law and Psychiatry 42-43 (2015) 19–30 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Law and Psychiatry The risks and benefits of disclosing psychotherapy records to the legal system: What psychologists and patients need to know for informed consent Bruce Borkosky a,⁎, Deirdre M. Smith b,1 a 1800 Lakeview Drive, Sebring, FL 33870, United States b University of Maine School of Law, 246 Deering Avenue, Portland, ME 04102, United States ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 304 837 2782. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Borkosky (D.M. Smith). 1 Tel.: +1 207 780 4376. 2 In this article, we do not distinguish between records the patients private information. For the sake of brevity, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability A Information (PHI). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.003 0160-2527/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o Available online 4 October 2015 Keywords: Psychotherapist–patient privilege Informed consent Waiver Disclosure PHI Confidentiality When psychologists release patient records to the legal system, the typical practice is to obtain the patients signature on a consent form, but rarely is a formal informed-consent obtained from the patient. Although psy- chologists are legally and ethically required to obtain informed consent for all services (including disclosure of records), there are a number of barriers to obtaining truly informed consent. Furthermore, compared to disclo- sures to nonlegal third parties, there are significantly greater risks when records are disclosed to the legal system. For these reasons, true informed consent should be obtained from the patient when records are disclosed to the legal system. A model for informed consent is proposed. This procedure should include a description of risks and benefits of disclosing or refusing to disclose by the psychotherapist, an opportunity to ask questions, and indica- tion by the patient of a freely made choice. Both psychotherapist and patient share decision making responsibil- ities in our suggested model. The patient should be informed about potential harm to the therapeutic relationship, if applicable. Several recommendations for practice are described, including appropriate communi- cations with attorneys and the legal system. A sample form, for use by psychotherapists, is included. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction When psychologists disclose confidential patient records (PHI)2 to the legal system, it is common practice, consistent with legal mandates, to ob- tain the patients signature on an authorization form. However, this pro- cess may occur so hurriedly or perfunctorily that clients may not fully understand what they have authorized or why, or may not realize that the consent is voluntary (Perlman, 2012, p. 136). Some may sign authori- zation forms against their wishes—due to of a variety of subtle and obvi- ous pressures, or 1 INTEGRATION OF FAITH, LEARNING AND WORK AT GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY G rand Canyon University is a Christ-centered educational institution that seeks to promote the common good by intentionally integrating faith, learning and work. The university’s initiative to integrate faith stems from its mission to educate students from a distinctively Christian perspective and prepare them for careers marked by kindness, service and integrity. In addition to helping students find their purpose, the university endeavors to carry out its mission in ways that are marked by compassion, justice and concern for the common good. The message of Jesus Christ offers wisdom for the present and hope for the future. It is good news for individuals and for the communities in which individuals live and work. Jesus himself taught that Christians should live as salt and light within the world, which suggests that the Christian worldview relates as much to the public arena as it does to the private lives of individuals. As a university, we are convinced this calling should shape the ways we think and act within academic disciplines and various career fields. Our desire to integrate faith, learning and work flows out of an institutional commitment to cultivate and exemplify the biblical ideals of glorifying God and loving neighbors as ourselves. By God’s grace we seek to honor Him in all that we do and to serve others in ways that are consistent with the loving kindness of Jesus Christ. These ideals are lofty but they represent appropriate goals and should serve as standards for Christian educational institutions. For these reasons, GCU is devoted to the intentional and pervasive integration of the Christian worldview. What is the Integration of Faith, Learning and Work? The integration of faith and learning may be understood as the scholarly process of joining together knowledge of God and knowledge of the universe for the sake of developing true, comprehensive and satisfactory understandings of humans and the world they inhabit. As a Christian university, we view the integration of faith and learning as a matter of institutional integrity and a matter of practical wisdom. At GCU, integration of the Christian worldview also extends to the workplace as we strive to instill a sense of vocational calling and purpose in our students, faculty and staff. It is our conviction that our work within the world matters to God and our neighbors and must be carried out with integrity and excellence. While few doubt that it is possible to serve God through ministry and mission work, we are convinced that God is also honored by faithful service within “secular” vocations. Integrating faith and work is a practical and logical extension of faith-learning integration. The integration of faith and work may be understood as the application of the Christian worldview within the context of work in ways that honor God, serve neighbors and contribute International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 42-43 (2015) 19–30 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Law and Psychiatry The risks and benefits of disclosing psychotherapy records to the legal system: What psychologists and patients need to know for informed consent Bruce Borkosky a,⁎, Deirdre M. Smith b,1 a 1800 Lakeview Drive, Sebring, FL 33870, United States b University of Maine School of Law, 246 Deering Avenue, Portland, ME 04102, United States ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 304 837 2782. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Borkosky (D.M. Smith). 1 Tel.: +1 207 780 4376. 2 In this article, we do not distinguish between records the patients private information. For the sake of brevity, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability A Information (PHI). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.003 0160-2527/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o Available online 4 October 2015 Keywords: Psychotherapist–patient privilege Informed consent Waiver Disclosure PHI Confidentiality When psychologists release patient records to the legal system, the typical practice is to obtain the patients signature on a consent form, but rarely is a formal informed-consent obtained from the patient. Although psy- chologists are legally and ethically required to obtain informed consent for all services (including disclosure of records), there are a number of barriers to obtaining truly informed consent. Furthermore, compared to disclo- sures to nonlegal third parties, there are significantly greater risks when records are disclosed to the legal system. For these reasons, true informed consent should be obtained from the patient when records are disclosed to the legal system. A model for informed consent is proposed. This procedure should include a description of risks and benefits of disclosing or refusing to disclose by the psychotherapist, an opportunity to ask questions, and indica- tion by the patient of a freely made choice. Both psychotherapist and patient share decision making responsibil- ities in our suggested model. The patient should be informed about potential harm to the therapeutic relationship, if applicable. Several recommendations for practice are described, including appropriate communi- cations with attorneys and the legal system. A sample form, for use by psychotherapists, is included. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction When psychologists disclose confidential patient records (PHI)2 to the legal system, it is common practice, consistent with legal mandates, to ob- tain the patients signature on an authorization form. However, this pro- cess may occur so hurriedly or perfunctorily that clients may not fully understand what they have authorized or why, or may not realize that the consent is voluntary (Perlman, 2012, p. 136). Some may sign authori- zation forms against their wishes—due to of a variety of subtle and obvi- ous pressures, or