Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psyc 175- Psyc and Law > Week 7 > Flashcards

Week 7 Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Loftus & Guyer (2002)

“Who abused Jane Doe? The Hazards of the Single Case History”

A

Loftus

  • hired PI
  • reviewed court records
  • interviewed Jane’s mother & foster mother

Did not reveal Jane Doe’s name
-questioned validity of abuse claims (no substantial medical evidence to support)

No charges filed on mother, lost visitation
Brother denies allegations
Mother claimed father had issues

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Taus v. Loftus et al.

A

JD sued Loftus, Univ. of Wash, and journal

JD ordered to PAY other side’s lit. costs (~$250,000)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Maire Elise West

A

1990- Diagnosed Bipolar disorder (manic-depressive)

1990-2000 six arrests, 19 hospitalizations

  • 1993 drove into Huntington Beach Pier (Nazis)
  • 1995 attacked teacher (messiah and slavery)
  • March, 2000 arrested for trespassing
  • Aug. 31, 2000 “mission” -> bagel shop -> ran over man

2004- People v. Marie Elise West (convicted 2nd degree murder)
2006- retrial (NGRI -> state mental hospital)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Individual Rights vs. Public Safety

A

If client:
Danger to self or others
-civil commitment (place under watch; temporary)

Danger to others
-tarasoff warning (very specific circumstances)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Historical Treatments

A

Trephiniation
-boring holes in skill to remove evil forces

Exorcism
-starving, whipping, beating someone who is “possessed” by evil spirits

Bloodletting, purging, frightening patients with threats of death, the “tranquilizer” chair
-assumed fear would counteract the overexcitement responsible for behavior

Insane Asylums (even for those who didn’t fit norm)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (1976)

A

Prior to, mentally ill could be INVOLUNTARILY and INDEFINITELY committed whenever the state believed needed treatment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Section 5150

A

As result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to themselves
Max 72-hour hold for treatment and evaluation

AKA LPS hold

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

LPS Holds

A

MUST release if no significant evidence

section - duration
5150 ---- 72 hour
5250 ---- 14-day
5260 ---- Additional 14-day
5270 ---- 30-day
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Short-Doyle Act

A

Governing the development of community-based treatment programs

INITIALLY funded 90% state and 10% counties
-intended to replace state mental institutions

1991
-state trans funding reap. to counties

-> increase in # homeless who are seriously mentally ill

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Laura’s Law

Assembly Bill 1421

A

Assisted Outpatient Treatment Demo Project Act of 2002

  • named after mental health worker who was killed by mentally ill who refused treatment
  • assisted outpatient treatment program (CA)
    • > may include forced mental treatment
  • court ordered
  • failure to comply –> 5150 Hold

Requirements:

  • adult 18+
  • suffering from mental illness
  • person unlikely to survive safely w/o supervision
  • history of lack of compliance w/ treatment
  • person’s condition is “sub. deteriorating”
  • treat. deemed nec.; otherwise grave danger of serious harm to self or others
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Tarasoff v. Regents of UC, et al.

A

August, 1969

  • Poddar told therapist (Moore) he intended to kill Tarasoff
  • therapist notified supervisor and campus police who detained Poddar, then released him

Oct. 26, 1969
Poddar killed Tarasoff

Tarasoff parents sued

et al.

  • therapist
  • supervisor
  • officers who detained
  • officers who received therapist’s oral communication
  • chief who received therapist’s letter

APA Amicus Brief
problem that NEGLIGENT to warn, not predict

Ruling:
Defense argued
-Poddar detained (LPS hold)
-Informing T would violate confidentiality
-public employees should be immune to liability (CA Tort Claims Act 1963)

Court REJECTED all arguments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Tarasoff Ruling

A

Defense argued

  • Poddar detained (LPS hold)
  • Informing T would violate confidentiality
  • public employees should be immune to liability (CA Tort Claims Act 1963)

Court REJECTED all arguments

Limits to confidentiality
-mental health prof. have duty to patient AND those specifically threatened by patient

Tatasoff Warning (duty to warn)

  • notify individual who is in danger from a client
  • -> identifiability
  • -> forgeability of harm
  • -> prediction of violence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Tatasoff Warning

A

Duty to warn

  • notify individual who is in danger from a client
  • -> identifiability (specific person)
  • -> forgeability of harm
  • -> prediction of violence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Rowland v. Christian

A

FORSEEABILITY OF HARM

R visited C
C didn't tell R about bad sink
-R used bathroom
-R injured self
-R sued C

Ruled

  • forseeability of harm
  • -> duty to warn
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Garner v. Stone

A

PREDICTION OF VIOLENCE

G told S he had dreams of killing Captain
S referred G to someone else, who referred him to another, G canceled his apt
S issued Tarasoff warning

G FIRED
G sued S, and won

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

When to issue Tarasoff warning

A

Makes specific threat to identifiable person
–> issue Tarasoff warning

ID
- kill everyone vs. kill Bob

Forseeability

  • if forseeability of harm (details, etc.), you have DUTY to WARN
  • ->Rowland v. Christian

Prediction of violence

  • ppl say things don’t mean all time, HISTORY BASED
  • ->Garner v. Stone
17
Q

Pros and Cons of Issuing Tarasoff Warning

A

Issue

  • threatened able to protect
  • violent offender is caught
  • NOT actually violent -> sued

Not Issue

  • person not actually violent or dangerous
  • stay in therapy, work out issues
  • if DANGEROUS and injure or worse -> sued
18
Q

People v. Biernbaum (2000)

A

B
-missing wife

No body found
Case reopened after 12 yrs
-argued body dumped ocean
-evidence he alt. flight records

Pros sought to open psych records

  • b/c issued Tarasoff warning
  • argued client-therapist priv. broken
  • -> only CLIENT can waive priv. (court agreed)

B convicted w/o this evidence

19
Q

Ewing v. Goldstein (2004)

A

Client father called therapist
-thought son kill ex’s new bf

No Tarasoff warning issued

Son killed ex’s new bf and committed suicide

Bf’s family sued therapist

APA- would increase liability and undermine practice (court REJECTED)

CA Supreme Court
-psyc CAN use info provided by 3rd parties to issue Tarasoff warning IF info deemed credible

20
Q

Competency to Stand Trial (CST)

A

PRESENT abilities
-defendant’s capacity to function meaningfully and knowingly in a legal proceeding

Defendant may be mentally ill or developmentally delayed but STILL competent and able to stand trial

Dusky v. US (1960)
-ability to consult w/ attorney & rational and factual understanding of proceedings

Incompetence involves DEFICIENCY in 1+ abilities

  • understanding legal proceedings
  • communicating w/ attorney
  • appreciating their role in the proceedings
  • making legally relevant decisions

Determine by use of standardized instruments

21
Q

Insanity Defense (NGRI)

A

Refers to psych state at TIME OF CRIME

B/c client’s mental disorder, not LEGALLY resp.

Asses NGRI:
McNaugten Rule (25 states, inc. CA)
-Cog motivation

Durham Rule (NH)
-mental disease or defect

Brawner/ALI Guidelines (20 states)
-Cog component and volitional component

NGRI Defense prohibited (Idaho, Kansas, Mt, Utah)

  • mental disease/defect alone, not defense
  • defense must prove insanity
22
Q

Incompetent defendants

A

~5% of felony defendants are evaluated for CST each year (~70% found CST)

Common characteristics

  • history of mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar, retardation)
  • history of drug abuse
  • socially isolated, unmarried, unemployed
  • poorly educated and below avg intelligence

IST:
Not serious crime, charges dropped
-seek treatment (changes can be refiled if regain comp)
Def. hospitalized to be treated for restoration of comp.
If comp CANNOT be restored, committed to mental hospital

23
Q

How can comp. be restored?

A

Def can be forced to take med to become CST

Treatment MUST be:

  • med appropriate
  • sub. unlikely to have side effects that may undermine trial’s fairness
24
Q

Grisso et al. (2003)

A

30% youth (11-13) showed impairments

  • LESS capable of making legal judgements
  • MORE likely confess to crimes
  • MORE likely accept plea bargains

By 16-17, show rates of comp similar to young adults (18-24, frontal lobe not fully devel. yet)

25
Q

Lionel Tate

A

“Wrestling” murder of 6 yr
Convicted at 13 after accepting plea (youngest in US to receive life w/o parole)

Overturned after 3 years b/c comp was NOT adequately eval before trial

Retried
1 year house arrest, 10 probation

26
Q

Malingering & CST

A

Malingering
-INTENTIONALLY faking mental illness or disability (e.g., amnesia)

Tests used evaluate malingering

  • structured interview of reported symptoms (SIRS)
  • -> wide range of symp. unlikely to be true even for severely disordered
  • -> eval. consistency in response

No clear benefits (may end up serving MORE time)

27
Q

People v. Kaczynski

A

Unabomber (string of bombings 1978-1995)

  • killed 3
  • injured 29

Arrested after “manifesto” in papers 1996

K wanted to defend self and refused public defense attorneys
Refused to go along w/ NGRI defense
[comp to do these things?]

Eventually, plea

  • K plead guilty
  • death penalty taken off table
  • life prison, no poss. parole
28
Q

Daniel McNaughten

A

1843
-delusional, stalked PM, killed believed PM
NGRI

Public furious -> demand tougher test of insanity

McNaughton Rule
-defect of reason from disease of mind
-not know nature & quality of act
  OR
-not know it was wrong

->became standard in GB and US

29
Q

Irresistible Impulse Test

A

For ind. knew act wrong, lacked CAPACITY to avoid performing it

APA- not clear to determine

prop. solution “police at the elbow test”

30
Q

Monte Durhan

A

In and out of hospital much of adult life

Tried for burglary 1951

  • IST -> 16 months, CST
  • convicted
  • appealed twice
  • basis: McNaughton rule “based on entirely obsolete and misleading conception of nature of sanity”

Durhan Rule
-not criminally resp. if unlawful act product of mental disease or mental defect

  • issues
  • > too much influence from psych.
  • > power taken from jury in determining guilt
  • > too vague (alcoholics? drug users?)
31
Q

Brawner (ALI) Rule

A

Def is NOT criminally resp. if
-at time, as result of mental disease/defect, lack sub. capacity to APPRECIATE wrongfulness or to CONFORM conduct to req. of law

32
Q

Diff between Brawner and McNaughten

A

Use term “appreciate”
-incorp. emotional as well as cog. determinants of criminal actions

Substantial capacity
-NOT req. offender exhibit total lack of appreciation, but ONLY lack “substantial capacity”

Cog. and volitional elements
-def.’s ability to control actions a suff. criterion by self for insanity

33
Q

How often is NGRI used?

A

1981

  • 102 out of 22,102 used NGRI defense
  • successful ONCE

Peaked 1981, then decrease

  • John Hickley attempted assassination of Pres
  • -> found NGRI
  • —-> Congress pissed! -> Insanity Defense Reform Act
34
Q

Insanity Defense Reform Act (1984)

A

“Unable to appreciate nature & qual. of wrongfulness. Mental disease/defect NOT otherwise constitute defense”
-eliminated volitional in Brawner

Prohib. experts from giving ‘ultimate opinion’
-> up to jury
Placed burden of proof on defense
-prev. on pros. to prove sanity!

35
Q

Two changes made after political assassination attempts

A

McNaughten

Insanity Defense Reform Act

Psyc 175- Psyc and Law (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions