Costs of Production

Answer

Abstract

Police investigators, forensic psychologists, and prosecutors take different approaches to investigating the truth within the context of the law enforcement and legal services. The scope of this paper is identification of the criteria that police investigators, forensic psychologists, and prosecutors define the truth and process cases in which the defendant may have a psychopathological issue that may have contributed to committing of a crime. Police investigators uses different approaches such as technology, forensics, interviewing, questioning, and interrogating in an attempt to find the truth, but relies on specialists to determining criminal liability of the accused with consideration of mental health issues. On the other hand, forensic psychologists are guided by forensic methodology that is founded on scientific evidence and ethical guidelines to identify the most probable alternative that can explain the circumstances, intentions, and motives pertaining to a case. Forensic psychologists may use tools such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 5^th edition to determine whether one is mentally fit to stand for trial. Lastly, but not the least, prosecutors are guided by legal guidelines to determine the truth. Depending on the state, a prosecutor may use one or a combination of methods such as the Model Penal Code Rule, the M’Naghten Rule, and/or the Durham Rule. Prosecutors are guided by state statutes or procedures on how to determine if an individual is mentally fit to stand for trial.

The Definition of Truth from the Perspective of the Police, Forensic Psychologists, and Prosecutors

            The purpose of this paper is to provide different definitions and criteria for determining truth by different stakeholders when faced with a defendant who has a psychopathological issue. The issue may have contributed to committing of crime. Different stakeholders in criminal investigation and judgment, including the police, forensic psychologists, and prosecutors, have different perspective in understanding of the truth and in the criteria they use to determine it.

Police: Discovering the Truth in Investigations

            Police investigators use a different approach to reach to a given conclusion. The truth lies on placing a suspect at the scene of crime. Police use technology to support the truth. This includes the use of forensic evidence-matching, photographic identification, facial recognition, and physical matching. Besides, traditional approaches such as interviewing, questioning, and interrogating are still in use. Police also rely on specialists such as forensic scientists, psychiatrists, and forensic psychologist to determine cases, especially when decisions regarding criminal liability or responsibility are a concern (Gehl & Plecas, 2017). Police have developed specialized teams of their own such as the Crisis Intervention Teams to enhance psychiatric assessment of suspects (Watson & Wood, 2017).

Forensic Psychologists: Determining the Truth about Defendants

            Forensic psychologists determine the truth through identification of all probable alternatives and reaching a decision on what is the most probable alternative in a given case. The alternatives of ascertaining truth include consideration of all probable alternatives, all highly probable alternatives, and all reasonable alternatives in responding to a case in which the criminal responsibility is in question when the defendant raises mental health concerns (Yadav, 2017).

            Forensic psychologists are guided by ethical guidelines and the forensic methodology. It is the duty of the forensic psychologist to ensure that he/she does not distort, withhold, or modify any relevant information, attempt to deny or avoid contrary evidence, and/or misinterpret any available evidence. He/she must not make any premature/unsupported conclusions. Once a conclusion is reached concerning criminal liability or other decisions, a forensic psychologist must advocate his/her opinions firmly and with appropriate vigor (Yadav, 2017). Forensic psychologist may use tools such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – fifth edition (DSM-5). DSM-5 to diagnose the accused or other persons on whether they have valid mental health conditions or not (Kim, Becker-Cohen, & Serakos, 2015). Information reporting ought to be accurate and should not point towards any alternative hypothesis (Yadav, 2017).

Prosecutors: Using the Law to Determine the Truth

            State statutes stipulate procedures or methods for processing persons whose mental competency is in question. Statues provide the context in which a prosecutor uses to understand how mentally ill persons are defined and recognized. Mental health disorders manifests in different ways. Therefore, it leaves room for defining and interpreting mental health issues in different ways (Kim et al., 2015). Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system experience exceptional set of circumstances that may challenge their criminal responsibility. Since, mentally ill persons could have experienced disorder or unstable state of mind at the time of committing offense, states are tasked with determination of whether the accused persons should be held responsible or liable for their criminal acts or not. In doing so, states recommend the use of a variation of three methods namely; the Model Penal Code Rule, the M’Naghten Rule, and/or the Durham Rule (Kim et al., 2015).  The prosecutor can use one or a variation of the three methods in the court of law as required by a given state.

            The Model Penal Code Rule focuses on determination of whether an individual in question can distinguish between right and wrong. This rule stipulates that a defendant who is suffering from a mental defect or disease cannot be considered liable for a criminal act in which she or he lacked considerable capacity either to conform his/her conduct in accordance with the requirements of the law or to appreciate the criminality of his conduct (Kim et al., 2015).

            The M’Naghten Rule presumes an individual to be sane unless the defense proves that during the time when she/he was committing the act, the accused was acting/laboring under defect of reason as a result of a disease of the mind that made him/her not to know the quality or the nature of the act he/she was doing, and if he/she did know, did not know, at the time, that what he was doing was wrong (Kim et al., 2015).  

            The Durham Rule is a relatively liberal approach of determining criminal responsibility. In this approach, the defendant is assumed as not criminally responsible, if his/her unlawful or criminal act was as a result or a product of mental defect or mental disease. Both Model Penal Code Rule and the M’Naghten Rule leave a considerable room for interpretation of a given case on behalf of the jury. In addition, they are more specific than the Durham Rule (Kim et al., 2015).

Conclusion

            The police prosecutors, the forensic psychologists, and prosecutors take different approaches to define and determine the truth in cases in which the defendant may have a psychopathological issue that may have contributed to committing of a crime. Police use technology, forensics, interviewing, questioning, and interrogating in an attempt to find the truth. Police depend on specialists to determine the mental wellbeing and criminal liability of the accused. Forensic psychologists are guided by forensic methodology that is founded on scientific evidence and ethical guidelines to identify the most probable alternative that can explain the circumstances, intentions, and motives pertaining to a case. Forensic psychologists may use tools such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 5^th edition to determine whether one is mentally fit to stand for trial. Lastly, but not the least, prosecutors are guided by legal guidelines and procedures to determine the truth. Depending on the state, a prosecutor may use one or a combination of methods such as the Model Penal Code Rule, the M’Naghten Rule, and/or the Durham Rule.