Legal Policy Short Paper

CJ 500 Sample Case Brief

 

Facts: Mr. Miranda was arrested at his residence, taken into custody, and subsequently brought

to the police station. While in custody at the police station, Mr. Miranda was identified by a

witness who made an accusation and complaint against him. Mr. Miranda was then interrogated

by police officers for approximately two hours. Mr. Miranda subsequently confessed to the crime

and gave a signed, written confession. Mr. Miranda was never advised of his right to counsel or

his right to remain silent. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury.

Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20 to 30 years

imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s

constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.

 

Issue: Whether statements that are obtained from an individual who is in custody and being

interrogated are admissible at trial if the suspect has not been advised of his Fifth Amendment

privilege to remain silent and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

 

Ruling: Confession received in violation of an individual’s Fifth Amendment and Sixth

Amendment privileges are inadmissible in trial if the individual has not been advised of his or

her rights.

 

Analysis: The court held that

there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal

court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of

action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate

themselves. (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966)

 

As such,

the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming

from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural

safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial

interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person

has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any

significant way. (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966)

 

The court further held that

without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or

accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the

individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so

freely. (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966)

 

Therefore, a defendant

must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that

anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the

presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for

him prior to any questioning if he so desires. (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966)

 

 

 

 

Conclusion: Based on the aforementioned reasons, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled and

reversed the conviction of Edwin Miranda in the state of Arizona.

 

 

Reference

 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

How to Perform Your Research

You will be writing a 1,000 word Reaction Paper in this course using the instructions and links found below. You will be completing the following tasks and gathering the following information for your paper:

  1. Watch the epigenetics video from PBS available as a YouTube link in this folder (second item in the folder). Begin your paper by defining epigenetics in your own words and discussing your reaction to the video.
  2. Interview your family members and complete the Family History-Dr. Oz.pdf .  Find out which disease(s) you are most at risk for.
  3. Research and locate one article on epigenetics and whatever disease you are most at risk for (select a study on research conducted on humans) from a reputable academic source:

Reputable Sources:

  • journal articles
  • government publications based on research

Do not use:

  • magazines of any sort, whether they are on paper or online
  • Websites of any type, including epigenetics websites
  • Wikipedia

How to Perform Your Research

  • Use the College Library in person or online (log in with your new MDC ID number (the one that is all numbers). Your password is the last four digits of that same MDC ID unless you have changed it.

Read the epigenetics article you find. Continue your paper with a discussion of the epigenetics article. Be sure to paraphrase (put things in your own words) and be sure to cite the author(s) of the article you find using APA style (see the section below on using APA style). Aim for about a page for this part of your paper.

  1. Discuss the concept of epigenesis in light of your family history and the article you read. Aim for one page for this section of your paper.
  2. Complete the Living to 100 Questionnaires. Integrate your findings on the questionnaire into your discussion. Aim for another page.
  3. Discuss how you can improve your health and longevity in light of your findings in this questionnaire, your understanding of epigenetics, and your knowledge of your family history. This should be your final page.

You can go over or under a page for any of the sections of the paper as long as your total paper is 1,000 words not counting the references.

General Rules for an “A” Paper (check your paper against this list)

◻    1,000 words

◻    Original work; plagiarism score of less than 10% (90% original work)

◻    Double-spaced, 12-point font, 1-inch margins

◻    Covers all 6 tasks

◻    Spellchecked

◻    College-level grammar

◻    Cite your article APA style (author & year within body of paper; full reference at end)

◻    No abstract, no cover

◻    Place your name and reference number on the first page. Use page numbers.

Submit the paper by the deadline in the Schedule and also in the Calendar. The box will open at the beginning of the semester so that you have time to submit your paper, review the originality report, and resubmit your paper if necessary until you have a plagiarism score of under 10%. Be sure to use the Turnitin Grammar Checker to ensure that your paper is well written and ensure that you have spellchecked everything. If you resubmit your paper, note that it takes 24 hours for your new score to show up in the Turnitin Drop Box.

Submission to Turnitin Drop Box

The Turnitin Drop Box is in Blackboard. You do NOT have to go to Turnitin to submit your paper. Turnitin is a plagiarism checking software. It checks to see if your work is original. I have set the Turnitin Drop Box so you can submit your paper as many times as you want until the due date. That will allow you to check your plagiarism score and see where your work is not original. You can then rephrase that section and put it into your own words. The expectation in this course is that your paper scores no more than 10% in plagiarism (90% original work). You will be able to resubmit your paper as many times as you need to in order to get it right until the Due Date. You will NOT be able to resubmit after the Due Date. Note that it takes 24 hours to see your new plagiarism score after resubmission. No more than 2 or 3 quotes in the entire paper, please.

Avoiding Plagiarism

You must be careful not to copy someone else’s ideas and not to copy and paste ideas from the sources you find. Copying and pasting from someone else’s work is considered plagiarism. You may use other people’s ideas, but you have to put them in your own words and reference the source. Putting things in your own words is called “paraphrasing.” And you must put the reference right after the idea. Needless to say, submitting plagiarized papers, including those copied from one of the Web sites that have “free” papers or even papers you can buy, will result in a penalty. That penalty in this course is that your grade will be reduced by the percentage of plagiarism over 10%. In other words, the less plagiarism, the higher your score; the more plagiarism, the lower your score. The paper is worth 10% of your grade in this course. Don’t risk it!

APA Style and References

One thing you will need to do in college is learn how to find and use references. References support your ideas. College-level work must be supported by research. You are expected to do that for this paper. You will research, locate, and use one reputable source from the literature on the topic of epigenetics/epigenesis. The “literature” is composed of studies that have been conducted in a scholarly way to support ideas. Scholarly sources can be found in journals or in some Web sites, especially those that come from .edu domains (.edu is short for “educational” Web sites) or .gov domains (.gov are government sites). The College Libraries have dozens of good journals you can use. You will be using the College Library for this paper. You may do the research in person or use the Web to access our library. See your librarian for more information on finding credible sources.

In APA style, you cite a source in two places: within the body of the paper where you use the idea or words of the author of the paper; and again in the Reference List at the end of the paper. For example, you might say, “According to Researcher A (2011)…epigenetics is…” What you must do is supply the researcher’s name within a sentence or at the end of a sentence in parenthesis (Smith, 2011). Then you give the full information for locating the study in the Reference List. That’s what Reference Lists are for: they allow the person reading your paper to look up your source if they want to. So remember, citing references APA style, requires two things: 1) that you cite the reference within the body of the paper, and 2) that you list the full reference at the end in the Reference List.

Case Study: Duty To Protect

PSY-510 Contemporary and Ethical Issues in Psychology

Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect

Directions: In a minimum of 50 words, for each question, thoroughly answer each of the questions below regarding Case 4: Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect. Use one to two scholarly resources to support your answers. Use in-text citations, when appropriate, according to APA formatting.

1. Why is this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Principles help frame the nature of the dilemma?

2. Who are the stakeholders and how will they be affected by how Dr. Yeung resolves this dilemma?

3. Does this situation meet the standards set by the Tarasoff decision’s “duty to protect” statute (see Chapter 7)? How might whether or not Dr. Yeung’s state includes researchers under such a statute influence Dr. Yeung’s ethical decision making? How might the fact that Dr. Yeung is a research psychologist without training or licensure in clinical practice influence the ethical decision?

4. In addressing this dilemma, should Dr. Yeung consider how her decision may affect the completion of her research (e.g., the confidentiality concerns of other participants)?

5. How are APA Ethical Standards 2.01f, 3.04, 3.06, 4.01, 4.02, 4.05, and 8.01 relevant to this case? Which other standards might apply?

6. What are Dr. Yeung’s ethical alternatives for resolving this dilemma? Which alternative best reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principles and enforceable standards, legal standards, and obligations to stakeholders? Can you identify the ethical theory (discussed in Chapter 3) guiding your decision?

7. What steps should Dr. Yeung take to implement her decision and monitor its effect?

References:

Identify what Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology apply to the case and explain how they apply to the case.

I have attached the three case files that are needed for this assingment..

For this assignment, you will read three forensic case examples and  apply your understanding of the APA ethics code as well as the specialty  guidelines for forensic psychology. The three case examples are found  in this week’s resources.

For each case, after reviewing your resources and reading the case example carefully, you will:

  • Identify any potential ethical issues related to the case.
  • Identify what APA guidelines apply to the case and explain how they apply to the case.
  • Identify what Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology apply to the case and explain how they apply to the case.
  • Give a description of how you would resolve this ethical dilemma. Use your guidelines and resources to explain your solutions.

Finally, you will write a 1-2 page reflection on the process of  working through these ethical dilemmas and your impression of the  ethical struggles of a forensic psychologist.

Length: 4-5 pages total; 1 page each per dilemma, 1-2 page reflection

Your paper should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas  and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and  insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect  scholarly writing

Ethics Case #1

For this case, please read the case history below. In this scenario, you are a forensic psychologist working in a correctional facility. Your role is as the treating psychologist for this patient. You have been working with him for one year and have developed a solid rapport with him despite his distrust of others, particularly mental health professionals. You meet with him for weekly therapy sessions. In this time, while he is willing to speak with you, he avoids topics which he feels may cause him to be forcibly medicated; and you have been unable to get him to try psychotropic medications voluntarily. Recently, the prison has decided to attempt to get a court order to medicate the patient due to concern related to dangerousness and increasing psychiatric instability. They would like your cooperation in the court process. As you read this scenario and develop an understanding of the patient, also consider what ethical concerns you may have—particularly related to the specialty guidelines for forensic psychology and multiple relationships—and how you might resolve these issues.

 

INMATE NAME: DOE, JOHN

 

Reason for Referral

Mr. Doe was referred for this psychological evaluation due to this the patient’s continued refusal to take psychiatric medication, continued active psychosis, and history of risk to others. This assessment was also conducted in order to get a better understanding of Mr. Doe’s emotional functioning, identify his strengths and weaknesses, provide suggestions that may aid in treatment planning, and help determine risk factors for his potential future violent behavior. He is currently being referred for 402.10 commitment to CPC.

 

Legal History

Mr. Doe is serving his first bid for Murder 1, Burglary 1, and Grand Larceny, with a life sentence. He is also accused of two murders in Canada, which charges are still pending. In the IO, it is reported that the patient first murdered two men in Canada before crossing the border with one of the victim’s vehicles. Per his parents’ report, the crimes in Canada were fairly graphic, involved a knife, and one of the victims was almost decapitated. In the U.S., it was reported that he shot a man in the back at his hunting camp before tying him to a four-wheeler and dragging him around. He then fled to the Mexican border in Texas. He was apprehended by a Border Patrol officer after he was noticed to have a rifle. Mr. Doe then assaulted the Border Patrol officer and has pending charges in Texas for this assault.

Personal Profile and Relevant History

Mr. Doe was born on 03/05/81, with no known complications. He had an unremarkable childhood, graduating high school in 1999. He was noted to have done well academically, had many friends in high school, although not in junior high, and was the co-captain of his high school football team. Records note a history of depression in junior high school.

 

After high school, he attended Alpha University in Canada, pursuing a degree in Engineering. He completed two years of school and was involved with a fraternity and other similar pro-social activities. He was noted to have had two girlfriends in the past, one of whom he had a sexual relationship with. Mr. Doe has one younger brother, Douglas, with whom he is very close. He is also supported by his parents, Bob and Mary Doe. Prior to Mr. Doe’s incarceration, he resided with his parents when he was not hospitalized.

 

During the summer of 2000, Mr. Doe went to Taipei as an English teacher. His parents reported that, when he returned home for the fall semester, his mental deterioration began. Records indicate that he was initially believed to be suffering from a depressive episode during the fall/winter of 2000 to 2001. He reported using marijuana daily between August 2000 to August 2001. He was noted to have gone on a drug binge in August of 2001, using cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy, and mushrooms for approximately one week while on a trip to Montreal with his fraternity brothers. Records from the family indicate that he had his first admitted hallucination of fighting a dragon at this time.

 

When he returned to school in fall 2001, he was further isolating himself, and had also become paranoid. Records from his family indicate that he was destroying and/or burying in the woods his personal belongings, including taking all of his clothes to a thrift store. He reported a need to “cleanse himself.” His family reported that he decreased his food intake to a half a piece of bread daily for the purpose of “ritual cleansing,” and to examine/overcome the concept of “what is need and what is want.” In September 2001, he locked himself in his room for five days, turning off the lights, unplugging the phone, TV, etc., and minimally drinking in an effort to “do well with control and self-discipline.” Between August and November of 2001, he lost 40 pounds. His family records note that he fell into a deep depression, which continued to occur the following years during the fall and winter months.

 

After Mr. Doe refused treatment and medication, he continued to deteriorate. In October 2001, he was reported to be mute often; and he overate to the point of physical pain. The patient reported that he was punishing himself. His parents reported that he often eloped to the woods for days at a time. He was brought, involuntarily, by police to Canada Hospital on 11/02/01. Hospital records indicated that he eloped on 11/05/01, was returned by his parents within hours, and subsequently eloped again on 11/06/01. He was found a week later by police, seeming to have lived in the streets for the duration of his absence. At this time, it was noted that he was not showering, for several weeks to months. Records indicate that he received intravenous medication for approximately one month due to his refusals to take oral medication. This was discontinued in December 2001 when Mr. Doe agreed to accept oral medication. His symptoms were noted to improve; however, he eloped on 01/14/02, and was not found by police.

 

According to his family, he then lived at home for the next few years, continuing to exhibit bizarre behaviors including: outings to the woods, sleeping with knives, having beliefs about a “troop” being after his family, paranoia regarding vampires, demonstration of poor hygiene including not showering or brushing his teeth for one year, and further isolation. In 2003, there was an episode noted in which he painted himself all white, as well as everything in his room, indicating that he had been enlightened. He then left the home to try to enlighten others, but scared a homeless man and the police were called. He was not charged with anything due to his parents’ intervention and their subsequent report of his mental condition to police.

 

In March 2005, his parents reported that he unlawfully entered a dwelling. His parents indicate that he was not intending to harm anyone or steal anything, but that he was trying to get out of the elements after spending time in the woods. He was hospitalized at Canada Forensic Hospital in April 2005 due to unlawfully entering a dwelling and resisting arrest. Records indicate that he was found competent and capable of attending trial. His parents reported that the case was dismissed due to his psychiatric issues.

 

In July 2005, his family moved to another town in Canada. Records from the family note that he began using marijuana heavily again in the summer of 2005, often isolating himself behind the garage listening to rave music and “communicating with the stars.” In November 2005, he was admitted to the burn unit at a hospital after he burned his chest and back while burning the clothes he was wearing. His family records note that he was very psychotic during this episode and that the burns were intentional. His family noted “lashing” marks, as though he hit himself with a flaming article of clothing. Records indicate that he left the hospital AMA, and peeled off and ate all of his dead skin from the burns.

 

Records sent by his parents from his hospitalizations note Mr. Doe being involuntarily admitted, with the last occurrence in December 2005, due to being “acutely psychotic, delusional, without any insight into his illness, with periods of agitation, with high risk to act on his delusions if left untreated, with potential of danger to his own safety or safety of others.” It was noted that he “presented with significant disorganization in thought process with tangentially to loosening of association with persecutory delusions believing his family and himself being in life threatening danger including rape and murder. Up until recently, in his hospital room, he was keeping lots of garlic ‘to keep demons and vampires away.’ During most of his interviews he has been quite agitated with verbal aggression and body posturing and staring intently to intimidate others especially nursing and medical staff. On many occasions he has gestured to ‘curse’ the staff. He believes he has the ability to curse people and make them suffer.” Additionally it is noted that, prior to this hospitalization, he “was brought by police, after he had called two different police detachment units and reported life threatening danger to his parents. His family reported that he was extremely paranoid before his admission, often sleeping with a knife. Mr. Doe reported having an overwhelming ‘intuition’ or ‘sense’ that his parents were going to be murdered and his mother raped. At the time, he eloped from home, hitchhiked, he became insomniac, extremely agitated, his behavior became very paranoid (e.g. carrying a knife with him at all times, telling parents to take their lives if an attack is going to be imminent). His parents feared that he could act on his thoughts, e.g., ‘he could attack us.'” He was noted to have escaped in January 2006.

 

He was captured by police in January 2006 and returned to the hospital. He was later transferred to the Canada Hospital. At that time, he agreed to take Clozapine; and after his symptoms diminished, he was released in July 2006. Records from the family indicate that Mr. Doe was doing well and was believed to be taking the medication until December 2006. During this time when he was medication compliant, he was noted to be less isolated, to have enjoyed some activities, and that the entire family reported they had “a really great Christmas.”

 

In January 2007, he again began to isolate himself and become depressed. He was noted as becoming very persistent in seeking and using marijuana in early 2007. His family reported that he listened to rave music on headphones, sometimes for 6-8 hours straight. He was noted to laugh, scream, and make strange noises, which appeared to be related to internal stimuli. In March 2007, he was noted to present with grandiose delusions of being the next Messiah, and having direct relations with God, Jesus, and “the Archangel.” His family reported that he regularly had conversations with these individuals. An incident is noted in which he threw a book into a fire, then retrieved it and placed it underwater, and then took it outside to the river. According to Mr. Doe, he believed the book to have turned into a demon and then into the Archangel (thus his need to save it). He also believed that the river behind the family home was sacred. He was noted to have gone to the river in the winter, disrobe, and get entirely under the water, in order to “cleanse” himself from demons.

 

Between March and May of 2007, he was noted to take multiple cold showers throughout the day to “cleanse” himself, leave food outside to “feed the spirits,” and holding his breath all day long to “avoid letting demons enter him.” He was noted to not be speaking and spending most of his day underneath a blanket holding a knife. In April 2007, his brother moved from the family home. In late April, Mr. Doe reported a desire to move to Halifax, secured a room and a job, and moved there on 05/01/07.

 

The crimes occurred in the beginning of May 2007. According to the patient’s own report, he went to a known location for prostitution in Halifax. He reported being commanded there, and that he was the “angel of judgment.” He reported getting into a vehicle with a man and driving to a secluded location where the man made sexual advances at Mr. Doe. Mr. Doe’s reports indicate that he cut the man’s throat and that he believed he was fighting the devil. He reported a similar experience during his second crime, in which he waited for hours in a known location for homosexual activity “while being tortured by vampires.” He reported that he was prepared to leave when a car drove up and “it was Satan himself.” He again reported cutting the individual’s throat. Records note that he then fled by car to the U.S. where he shot and killed another man, an act for which the motive appears to have been to secure another vehicle. He reported that he was told to do so by an angel. According to Mr. Doe he was attempting to flee to Mexico “to find safety in the forest.” He was apprehended at the Texas border and returned to the county of his original crimes in the U.S.

 

Since his incarceration, he has not taken any psychiatric medications and continues to demonstrate psychotic processing. He attempted suicide once at the county jail, in September 2007 by biting his wrist because he “believed that he was a spirit and could walk through the wall.”

 

Mr. Doe is currently housed at Correctional Facility in General Population; however, he is on a unit that is largely populated by inmates with serious mental illness. He does not speak often about having a mental illness currently, but does indicate that he had Schizophrenia in the past. He is known to sleep minimally, is paranoid, and demonstrates strange mannerisms in his speech and movement. Officers note that he is often fighting imaginary people in his cell, particularly at night. His eye contact is often poor and is threatening in nature. He currently takes all meals in his cell so that he can spend more time “meditating.” He has significant support from his family, whom he calls on a regular basis. His family reports that he remains psychotic and he believes that he is a higher religious being. While he has had no disciplinary infractions during his incarceration, he has needed officer intervention several times to avoid any major trouble with other inmates. He remains focused on not hurting himself or others as he is strongly against forced medication and remains unwilling to do anything to risk such.

 

He is receiving mental health services and carries a diagnosis of Schizophrenia–Paranoid Type, and Personality Disorder NOS.

 

Behavioral Observations and Mental Status

Mr. Doe has been interviewed on multiple occasions since January 2009; the following is a summary of his general behavior and mental status.

 

Mr. Doe is a 35-year-old Caucasian male, who walks with a stiff gait, similar to a military style. In addition, he is noted to position himself when walking or seated such that no one is behind him. Related to this, officers note that he will not let other inmates hold the door for him and instead insists that they walk in front of him. He was dressed in institutional clothing and appeared in good hygiene. He is noted to have a goatee, and his hair is styled with gel. He has not cut his hair since his incarceration, although he grooms his facial hair regularly. Of note, on one occasion he shaved lightning bolts into his facial hair, claiming that “the earth made me do it.” He appeared his stated age. He is oriented times three. There were no signs of depression or agitation today, although he was noted during initial interviews to appear more hostile, often with a threatening yet avoidant glance at the interviewer (as well as other staff). His eyes are often squinted, with his forehead lowered as though he is almost trying not to make any eye contact. When he meets the gaze of someone, he is often noted to look away. Mental health records note that he believes that “demons can see inside you through your eyes.”

 

In more recent meetings with this interviewer, the patient’s gaze has become softer and less threatening. He consistently denies suicidal or homicidal ideation, intent, or plan, and in fact discusses at great length his desire not to demonstrate anything similar to those ideas due to his fear of forced medication. His affect is usually flat, except for a few moments when he demonstrated some emotional response during an interview. The most noticeable affective response was following Rorschach testing when he demonstrated some anxiety, but also joked briefly with this writer. He is generally calm during interviews, although he is noted to be uncomfortable when the door is closed, when there are unfamiliar people in the interview, or when there is significant activity outside in the hallway. He generally gets anxious at some point in most interviews and requests to leave; it often appears abrupt and awkward and is usually related to a topic he would not like to discuss. He has never shown any signs of hallucinations or delusions during interviews; however, he is noted by officers to appear to be responding to such in his cell. Thought content is mostly reality-based; however, it is extremely pseudo-philosophical in nature. He is very difficult to follow due to his manner of speech, difficulty responding directly to questions, and tangentiality. He often becomes tangential but does always return to the original question asked. He presents as intelligent and is deliberate in his speech such that he does not reveal any information that could be directly linked to psychotic processing. When he nears this topic area he often stops and states that he does not want to discuss that issue. During testing, he readily attempted all tests and worked in an effortful manner. He completed testing very rapidly, which will be discussed further as it relates to specific testing. He demonstrated no problems related to attention and concentration. Speech was of normal rate and prosody. He had many questions about his success and failure on the test, which appeared reflective of decreased self-esteem.

and current APA standards.