Define competency and indicate the standard used for juvenile and adult competency
Assignment 1: Assault in the City: CST and Criminal Responsibility at the Time of Offense
Click here to study a vignette.
Tasks:
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines
Order Paper NowOn the basis of the vignette you read, respond to the following:
- Define competency and indicate the standard used for juvenile and adult competency. Discuss how a CST evaluation is conducted, including any assessment instruments relevant in this particular vignette.
- On the basis of the information you have from the vignette, provide an opinion on the defendant’s competence.
- Discuss the assessment of criminal responsibility by addressing the following:
- Present the standards used for criminal responsibility in your jurisdiction. This information can be obtained through an Internet search regarding the state law.
- Discuss the assessment procedures for an examination of MSO and the possible outcomes of NGRI and GBMI.
Submission Details:
- By Saturday, September 20, 2014, post your responses to this Discussion Area.
- Through Wednesday, September 24, 2014, respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts. While responding, compare the similarities and differences between what you have constructed and what your classmates have.
- Page 1 of 1 Psychology and the Legal System
© 2013 Argosy University
Assault in the City The chief asks Dr. Johnson to conduct a competency to stand trial (CST) evaluation and a criminal responsibility evaluation, referred to as the mental state at the time of an offense (MSO), of the defendant. Dr. Johnson must report her findings to the court. She has already seen media publicity suggesting the prosecutor is going to play “hard ball” and wants to try the young man as an adult and seek the longest possible prison sentence. The chief recommends a CST evaluation and an MSO evaluation so, as he says, “nothing will come back to bite them” after the trial. Although she finds the young man’s alleged behavior reprehensible, she feels confident she can conduct an objective evaluation. She has interviewed the individual and understands his low intelligence quotient (IQ) and dysfunctional family background as mitigating factors. Although she does not wish to advocate for the defendant, she feels he may not be competent to go to trial. She prepares to conduct the CST and MSO evaluations. However, the day before the examination is scheduled, her fifteen-year-old daughter tells her the man was a “friend” on her computer social network. She recognized his face from the news and told her mother after her mother mentioned she was working on this case. The daughter denies having ever met the man and states her page is set so “anyone can be my friend; it doesn’t mean I know them!” Dr. Johnson must now conduct the evaluations objectively, although she feels her daughter may have been threatened. She realizes this connection is insufficient to withdraw from the case.
