Bedore PSY 570 Case Study Discussion

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

570

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by CountArt10896 on coursehero.com

Case 13–7: Billy Bezerk was to stand trial for the axe murder of his family of four. His attorney was planning to use an insanity defense and hired Cruddy D. Cider, Psy.D., to conduct an expert psy- chological evaluation of criminal responsibility. The evaluation revealed that Mr. Bezerk had a major thought disorder, poor impulse control, and considerable unmodulated anger and frequently expressed paranoid ideation. In particular, Mr. Bezerk’s auditory hallucinations had repeatedly warned him that alien beings had taken over the bodies of his family and were about to embark on the conquest of Earth. Dr. Cider cited all these findings and concluded his report with the statement that Mr. Bezerk was clearly insane at the time of the offense. The ultimate issue of whether a defendant was “insane” at the time of an offense does not fall within the valid realm of a psycholog-ical question because the concept of insanity is defined by law rather than by behavioral science. A bit of history reveals the complexity of the issue. In 1843, Daniel M’Naghten, a Scottish wood turner, attempted to assassinate the prime minister of England while suffering from stark paranoid delusions and killed a dif- ferent man instead. The court found him not guilty because he clearly did not understand the nature or wrongfulness of his act. Public outrage after his acquittal prompted the cre-ation of a formal legal definition of insanity that became known as the M’Naghten rule. In the 1950s, Monte Durham was convicted of housebreaking in the District of Columbia, and his only defense at trial asserted Durham was that he was of unsound mind at the time of the offense (Durham v. United States, 1954). In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia adopted a so-called product test under which legal insanity hinged on whether the person committed the criminal act because of a mental disease or defect. Considerable criticism followed because that standard gave mental health experts too much influence in a decision of insanity and not enough to jurors. The next development, known as the (MPC), published by Model Penal Code the American Law Institute (ALI), provided a compromise standard for legal insanity, blending elements of the stricter M’Naghten rule and the more lenient Durham ruling. Under the MPC ALI standard, insanity defenses hinged on whether at the time of the criminal conduct, as a result of mental dis-ease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or lacked the ability to behave in conformity with the requirements of the law. The MPC ALI standard enjoyed popularity until 1981, when John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity under those guide- lines after attempting to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. Public outrage at Hinckley’s acquittal led federal lawmakers to pass legislation reverting to the stricter M’Naghten standard. Some states attempted to abolish the insanity defense altogether by offering juries a verdict of “guilty, but mentally ill,” which allowed sentencing of people to terms of years in psychiatric facilities. Today’s standards for proving legal insanity vary widely from state to state, requiring those offering expert testimony to focus their opinions on the elements of the particular statutes in question. Dr. Cider can appropriately describe the defendant’s bizarre behavior, confirm his impulsivity and instability using test or inter-view data, explain how a lack of control might result, link these findings to the facts of the case, and provide other such expert commentary. Based on his knowledge of schizophrenia and his evaluation of Mr. Bezerk, Dr. Cider may also testify about the probability that the symptoms observed most likely affected the defendant’s behavior on the day of the crime. However, the judge or jury must weigh the evidence and decide whether the information
presented proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bezerk met the legal definition of insanity. Too frequently, mental health professionals will neglect such caution in their testimony and may even find themselves encouraged to comment on ultimate issues by some attorneys and judges (Faust, 2011d; Melton et al., 1997; Sales & Shuman, 1993; Sales & Simon, 1993). Sometimes, even experienced forensic mental health professionals have been caught making inappropriate assertions from the witness stand. Andrea Yates, the Texas woman convicted of drowning her children in a bathtub, was granted a new trial by an appeals court after an expert witness for the prosecution gave false testimony. Billy Bezerk was a man accused of murdering his family, and his attorney hired Cruddy D. Cider, Psy.D., to conduct an expert psychological evaluation of criminal responsibility. The evaluation revealed that Bezerk had a major thought disorder, poor impulse control, and unmodulated anger, with auditory hallucinations warning him of alien beings taking over his family's bodies. Dr. Cider concluded that Bezerk was clearly insane at the time of the offense. The concept of insanity is defined by law rather than behavioral science. In 1843, Daniel M’Naghten attempted to assassinate the prime minister of England while suffering from paranoid delusions, but was found not guilty due to his lack of understanding of the act. Public outrage led to the creation of the M’Naghten rule, which became known as the M’Naghten rule. In the 1950s, Monte Durham was convicted of housebreaking in the District of Columbia, and his only defense at trial asserted that he was of unsound mind at the time of the offense. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia adopted a product test, which emphasized whether the person committed the criminal act because of a mental disease or defect. Critics criticized this standard, arguing it gave mental health experts too much influence in a decision of insanity. The Model Penal Code American Law Institute (ALI) provided a compromise standard for legal insanity, blending elements of the stricter M’Naghten rule and the more lenient Durham ruling. The MPC ALI standard enjoyed popularity until 1981 when John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity, leading to federal lawmakers passing legislation reverting to the stricter M’Naghten rule. Today's standards for proving legal insanity vary widely, requiring expert testimony to focus on the specific statutes in question.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help