The education and training of this individual is threefold. He or she is a medical doctor. He continues training as a psychiatrist. Thirdly, he trains to answer questions about psychiatric classifications as related to the law. The forensic psychiatrist determines whether someone is fit to stand trial or not.
For legal purposes, the finding of insanity is very stringent. First the mental status is diagnosed. Then, the subject must have been unable to judge what he was doing was wrong. That incompetency had to have been in effect when the crime was committed.
A prime example is a person who functions in a relatively normal way under the influence of the appropriate medication. But, when he is not monitored, he thinks he does not need the medication any longer. It is not true because when he stops taking it, he becomes unable to tell what is right and what is wrong.
The psychiatrist works with the courts to determine sanity and also to help those who are found incompetent. He may give the judge sentencing recommendations after evaluating the accused. The recommendations are based on the patients mental state when he committed the criminal act.
In criminal cases this will have been a violent crime. It may have been rape, it may have been kidnapping and murder. Although the evaluation protects the rights of the accused, it also protects the public at large from future acts likely to be perpetrated against new victims if he is set free.
The schizophrenic wears a mantle of normalcy when he is under the proper medication. The caveat is that, when unsupervised, he is unlikely to continue taking the pills. Gradually, he will return to the dangerous predator he was before starting on the medication.
The psychiatrist testifies in court under oath. He has had numerous interviews with the alleged criminal. He presents his qualified opinion without considering which attorney it supports. It is true though that the defense attorney only hires him as an expert witness if he supports innocence. Conversely, the prosecution hires him if he supports a verdict of guilty.
There may be a detailed report prepared for the judge. He is the only individual except for the jury that is supposed to be influenced. It will explain the reasoning behind the expert opinion. A judge has extensive legal understanding. He does not, however, have the background in psychiatry to decide competency on his own.
There are guidelines in place limiting the judges ability to impose too harsh or too lenient a sentence. The psychiatrist has to meet certain criteria as well. His diagnosis must comply with the legal definition of sane or insane.
There are very specific criterion to be met. At the time the crime was committed, the accused must have been unaware of what he was doing. Alternatively, he could not appreciate the wrongfulness of the crime because of a mental disease. If the psychiatrist or the judge do not make correct determinations, the public will be endangered. If sent to a mental institution instead of prison, it is possible he may hurt someone there.
For legal purposes, the finding of insanity is very stringent. First the mental status is diagnosed. Then, the subject must have been unable to judge what he was doing was wrong. That incompetency had to have been in effect when the crime was committed.
A prime example is a person who functions in a relatively normal way under the influence of the appropriate medication. But, when he is not monitored, he thinks he does not need the medication any longer. It is not true because when he stops taking it, he becomes unable to tell what is right and what is wrong.
The psychiatrist works with the courts to determine sanity and also to help those who are found incompetent. He may give the judge sentencing recommendations after evaluating the accused. The recommendations are based on the patients mental state when he committed the criminal act.
In criminal cases this will have been a violent crime. It may have been rape, it may have been kidnapping and murder. Although the evaluation protects the rights of the accused, it also protects the public at large from future acts likely to be perpetrated against new victims if he is set free.
The schizophrenic wears a mantle of normalcy when he is under the proper medication. The caveat is that, when unsupervised, he is unlikely to continue taking the pills. Gradually, he will return to the dangerous predator he was before starting on the medication.
The psychiatrist testifies in court under oath. He has had numerous interviews with the alleged criminal. He presents his qualified opinion without considering which attorney it supports. It is true though that the defense attorney only hires him as an expert witness if he supports innocence. Conversely, the prosecution hires him if he supports a verdict of guilty.
There may be a detailed report prepared for the judge. He is the only individual except for the jury that is supposed to be influenced. It will explain the reasoning behind the expert opinion. A judge has extensive legal understanding. He does not, however, have the background in psychiatry to decide competency on his own.
There are guidelines in place limiting the judges ability to impose too harsh or too lenient a sentence. The psychiatrist has to meet certain criteria as well. His diagnosis must comply with the legal definition of sane or insane.
There are very specific criterion to be met. At the time the crime was committed, the accused must have been unaware of what he was doing. Alternatively, he could not appreciate the wrongfulness of the crime because of a mental disease. If the psychiatrist or the judge do not make correct determinations, the public will be endangered. If sent to a mental institution instead of prison, it is possible he may hurt someone there.
About the Author:
If you are looking for information about forensic psychiatrist, pay a visit to our web pages online here today. Additional details are available at http://childadultforensics.com now.
No comments:
Post a Comment