Should psychiatry or psychology be allowed in the court room?: An essay

Published under category: Writing Help Convenience | 2015-05-16 21:42:39 UTC

Context: Criminal justice system

The arguments that have been presented about the involvement of psychologists and psychiatrists within the legal framework has caused a stir worldwide. Looking at the vast research conducted concerning clinical judgment one is given enough data to clarify disputes concerning such professional activities. However, studies show that professionals in most occasions fail to reach reliable conclusions and that the accuracy of their judgment does not necessarily overrule that of laypersons. Under such conditions, one would have serious doubt if psychologists or psychiatrists input in the legal standards are trustworthy or important. The paper addresses these controversies while examining the Twinkie's defense as a baseline. In giving evidence in a legal setting, the professional is bound to standard for according expert statutes law. Here the professional is responsible for giving the court information that would be sure or proof related in the pending case at hand and not his field in general or other specific issues. In the Twinkies defense, a psychiatrist testified in defense to the accused that he committed the crime while he was not aware. That is to say that the crime was committed, but he was not responsible for the murder, even after data showed that he stopped and reloaded the gun. The argument was that the junk food he ate would have been affecting his reasoning. The relationship between junk food and the case was never connected, and the name stuck. It shows how the use of professional help at times is not helpful and can be used in defense, but all facts not presented this case violated this clause. Reasonable certainty is another factor that has to be considered. That is to say that the professional has to provide data that would help determine the current, prior, or future state of a person under study. Question like can the person understand the changes against him? Could the person understand or comprehend the consequences of his actions at the time of the crime? Looking at the case study we are introduced to the use of junk food as being an issue in the mental state of the accused. He committed murder and his actions according to an expert witness he presented he was not in his right sense of mind. His actions however tell a different story altogether. How would a man who was not in his right sense of mind stop and realize he has run out of armor to refill. It proves beyond reasonable doubt that the use of professional practice in court can be deep and provide evidence, but the use of such evidence would differ. The crime would have been ignored in such scenario were the directives given by an expert witness followed (Skeem et al). Studies indicate that small professional advantage and some of a small lay advantage as compared to a laypersons judgment is imminent, but it does not make their judgments superior. It goes without say then that the judgments of the layman and the profession are almost the same and no one is given more priority of better placed in conducting judgments. It can be argued that the psychological science stands out as being uniquely placed, informative well written, organized and of great value to psychologists. It, however, maintains only focus on the scientific approach of mental issues, health issues, but it avoids the telling sign that would be seen through the physical evidence. So the argument of whether it should be introduced in the courtroom remains a debate that would have no definite arguments. Refences Faust David, Ziskin jay. "The Expert witness in psychology and psychiatry." (1988): 31-35. Skeem Jennifer, Douglas Kevin; Lilienfeld Scott. Psychological Science in the Courtroom: Consensus and Controversy. New York: The Guilford Press, 2009. ORDER PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER