Furthermore, he installed razor wire in the walls to prevent the possibility of people hiding in his walls and went as far as believing there was eavesdropping devices in the billiard walls (John E. DuPont Trial: 1997-Trial, n.d.). Based on pretrial testimony, the court ordered on February 9, 1996 that John Du Pont undergo a competency examination and was later deemed mentally incompetent on March 18, 1996 for to stand trial in September 1996. Du Pont was remanded to Norristown State Hospital for treatment of paranoid schizophrenia. At his second competency hearing in December 1996 DuPont was determined to be competent to proceed in trial after being treated
Do you yearn to get into the deranged minds of criminals like the infamous Jeffrey Dahmer? When you become a highly trained doctor of forensic psychology, you get to do the job of the hit T.V show characters Dr. Huang from Law & Order: SVU and Dr. Reid from Criminal Minds. Police, judges, juries, and lawyers are all unable to determine if felons are mentally insane or fit for trial, nor are they able to counsel victims. However, the recently sought-after study of forensic psychology is able to consolidate the divide between legal matters and the mental processes of these criminals. Become part of a field that is recognized as one of the most undeniably important parts of today 's legal system by becoming a forensic psychologist (Watchel).
American sniper Chris Kyle was murdered February 2, 2013. His murderer Eddie Ray Routh plead insane and blamed mental illness, he was found guilty of his crimes and sentenced to life in prison after the evidence of him ordering fast food after the murder was brought forth. An act he cannot perform with his “mental illness.” Ruth Lee Johnson J.D. graduate of Harvard Law school writes about the defense saying “Insanity is a legal term, not a medical term.” This gives the jury the power to determine insanity, opposed to a psychologist. Does the jury have the qualifications to make such decisions and even if some are truly insane how can you differentiate between them and those who want an easy way out?
Defense attorneys are confronted with the new regulation “special administrative measure” (SAM) as it seemed to overlook the underlying ethical issue. Defense attorneys fully abide by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In particular, they abide by Rule 1.6, which is the requirement of confidentiality. The rule prohibits the use of attorney-client communication as evidence before a court of law. The ethical rule demands that “a lawyer shall not reveal information to the representation of the client.” The rule ensures that the information that is exchanged by the attorney and client is confidential and that it’s not presented in court or to anyone else.
“No! I mean… Jesus, I don’t know. Maybe if he hadn’t abandoned me in prison, things would have been different.” Li hesitated for a moment before delivering his counter-argument. “And maybe if you hadn’t succumbed to Mosco’s advances, you wouldn’t have been duped into meeting Ana.” Tom’s body stiffened and he stared at the therapist with disbelieving eyes. “Are you saying it’s my fault I was raped?” he asked incredulously.
W. Bush said “Law enforcement officials cannot place themselves above the law that they are sworn to defend.” OTHER - The police are, and always haves been, the protectors of our freedoms- we need non corrupt officers to be able to do that - It is such a big issue, that October 22 has been named the National Anti Police Brutality Day - Some policy officers take advantage of the power/authority they have - In many cases citizens have not taken legal action against the corrupted police which is necessary for an overall end to the brutality to be achieved - The law states that we are innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent - Cops receive an unfair favorable treatment when it comes to not getting indicted - Police generally believe and act as if they are above the law COUNTERS - Counter argument 1: but the police are our authority and they are just trying to protect us? They are using excessive force when it is unnecessary and this is more harmful than
When the police are asking questions i think the people should have the right to have a lawyer present and the reason to having a lawyer present is to protect you and the lawyer can make the police to stop asking me or anyone questions the lawyer also fights for you in court and if the lawyer is good then you could possibly be set free. that 's why the people of our country should know are constitutional rights, that 's why miranda got arrested in the first place is he didn 't know anything about our rights and he set there and let that cop make him confess and the bad part about all of this is the cop knew the rights but chose not to read them to him,i thank 9f miranda would have known his rights that cop wouldn 't have been able to set there and just keep
Another direct exception the exclusionary rule is the good-faith exception. When a court allows a good-faith exception, they allow evidence that was technically obtained illegally, via an invalid search warrant, to be used in court if an officer seized said evidence in “good-faith”. If an officer acquired evidence in “good-faith,” this means that he or she was not aware of the invalid-ness of the search warrant. In contrast, if an officer is aware of the invalid search warrant, but still proceeds to attain evidence, the good-faith exception will not be applied and the evidence will not be allowed in
At the time of the murder, Mallard was being treated at Graylands psychiatric hospital, it was here he was first interviewed, later he was interviewed at the police station for 8 hours, this was not recorded. Mallard stated that during these interviews he was asked to put “forward his own theories of how it had been committed” (Fair Trials 2013). This demonstrates the denial of the rights of the accused as a mentally ill suspect was taken advantage of and coerced into admitting guilt. This can be seen as coercion and a violation of Mallard’s right to not be compelled to admit guilt (ICCPR). Mallard was questioned continually by police, during which he was bullied and assaulted.
At the time of the murder, Mallard was being treated at Graylands psychiatric hospital, it was here he was first interviewed, later he was interviewed at the police station for 8 hours, this was not recorded. Mallard stated that during these interviews he was asked to put “forward his own theories of how it had been committed” (Fair Trials 2013). This can be seen as coercion and a violation of Mallard’s right to not be compelled to admit guilt (ICCPR). Mallard was questioned again and again by police, during which he was bullied and assaulted. This demonstrates the denial of justice, as the police investigation was deeply flawed and conducted unethically.