LEARN MORE...

Vignette Case Analysis

Content type

User Generated

Subject

Psychology

Type

Homework

Uploaded By

creary0999

Pages

Showing Page:

1/9

Running head: VIGNETTE CASE ANALYSIS 1

Vignette Case Analysis

Name:

Institutional affiliation

Showing Page:

2/9

VIGNETTE CASE ANALYSIS 2

Vignette Case Analysis

Risk of Dangerousness

Defining the risk of dangerousness may take two parts; first, it refers to the ability to

determining the frequency and severity of a dangerous behavior exhibited by a person. Second, it

may imply defining the circumstances that may stimulate the occurrence of the dangerous

behavior such as mental disorder and substance abuse among others (Douglas et al., 2003). To

ascertain the risk of dangerousness it is essential for scientific clinical evaluation by a

psychiatrist or other health professional hence the need for an expert witness. There have been

different landmark cases relating to the issue of risk of future dangerousness. For example, in

U.S. v. Fields, the defendant was sentenced to death because of committing a capital offense.

The judge considered the report of the psychiatrist that stated that Field is viewed to be

dangerous in future. The psychiatrist’s report was based on the examination of the past records of

the defendant as opposed to scientific testing. Although the defendant’s attorney objected to the

report, the District Court agreed with the testimony. Another landmark case is the Barefoot v.

Estelle where the decision of the court had its basis on the opinions of psychiatrist regarding

future dangerous of the defendant and ability to continue being a threat. The accused was

convicted of the murder of a law enforcement officer.

Relevance of Defendant’s Age to a Risk of Dangerousness Assessment

The age of the defendant is relevant for the psychologist’s evaluation of juveniles who

have been granted automatic waiver by the judge and prosecutor direct file. The evaluation may

use three factors; risk of dangerousness, maturity, and if he is amenable to treatment. The age of

Showing Page:

3/9

End of Preview - Want to read all 9 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Running head: VIGNETTE CASE ANALYSIS Vignette Case Analysis Name: Institutional affiliation 1 2 VIGNETTE CASE ANALYSIS Vignette Case Analysis Risk of Dangerousness Defining the risk of dangerousness may take two parts; first, it refers to the ability to determining the frequency and severity of a dangerous behavior exhibited by a person. Second, it may imply defining the circumstances that may stimulate the occurrence of the dangerous behavior such as mental disorder and substance abuse among others (Douglas et al., 2003). To ascertain the risk of dangerousness it is essential for scientific clinical evaluation by a psychiatrist or other health professional hence the need for an expert witness. There have been different landmark cases relating to the issue of risk of future dangerousness. For example, in U.S. v. Fields, the defendant was sentenced to death because of committing a capital offense. The judge considered the report of the psychiatrist that stated that Field is viewed to be dangerous in future. The psychiatrist’s report was based on the examination of the past records of the defendant as opposed to scientific testing. Although the defendant’s attorney objected to the report, the District Court agreed with the testimony. Another landmark case is the Barefoot v. Estelle where the decision of the court had its basis on the opinions of psychiatrist regarding future dangerous of the defendant and ability to continue being a threat. The accused was convicted o ...
Purchase document to see full attachment

Tags: case study psychology original work no plagarism