Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Forensic Psychology
Exam 5
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| convicting a defendant of murder because the felony act lead to a murder | Felony murder |
| separate phases for determining a verdict and punishment | Bifurcated trial |
| the case in chief is presented to determine a verdict | Guilt-determination phase |
| guilt has been determined and mitigating/aggravating factors are presented and punishment decided | Sentencing/Penalty phase |
| evidence casting doubt on a defendant’s culpability which the prosecution is required to turn over to defense | Exculpatory evidence |
| does not have to be turned over | Inculpatory evidence |
| a mistake during a trial which would not have changed the trial outcome | Harmless error |
| a writ/legal action requesting the release of a prisoner on grounds of unlawful detention | Habeas Corpus |
| presented by the prosecution to make the crime/defendant deserving of more punishment | Aggravating factors |
| Law enforcement official killed Murder after kidnapping Heinousness (torture, victim suffering, child, etc.) Future dangerousness in their community Multiple murders History of violence | Aggravating factors |
| presented by the defense to temper the punishment | Mitigating factors |
| No significant criminal history Young age Coercion by codefendant Emotional reaction Unforeseen consequences of the act Mental Retardation or mental illness Bad childhood Anything garnering sympathy for defendant | Mitigating factors |
| U.S. Supreme Court banned execution due to the arbitrary/discriminatory nature | 1972-Furman v. Georgia |
| State legislation satisfied concerns and execution was reinstituted | 1976–Gregg v. Georgia |
| Reduced # of federal appeals | 1996–Congress Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act |
| U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing MR defendants violated the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) 3-3-2014: Majority of supreme court justices voices concern about a stringent IQ cutoff of 70 for MR | 2002–Atkins v. Virginia |
| U.S. Supreme Court ruled that juveniles lacked maturity (and responsibility) to the degree of adults such that they should not be executed. APA amicus brief cited as evidence | 2006–Roper v. Simmons |
| Attorney General can decide if states provide adequate counsel in death penalty cases | 2006–Patriot Act |
| U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant must be competent for execution | 2007–Panetti v. Quarteman |
| Related to the 8th Amendment-protection from cruel and unusual punishment | Competency for Execution |
| August 2001 unanimously passed a resolution to suspend the death penalty and filed an Amicus Brief Objected to the death penalty based upon: 2/3 of cases overturned on appeal DNA exonerated many persons on death row Death qualified jurors more convict | APA Efforts |
| potential jurors must be able to follow the law or they may be removed for cause. | Death qualification procedure |
| Death penalty is not a deterrent | States with it have a higher homicide rate States that reinstituted it saw a rise in homicide rates |
| it makes human life less sacred, thus provoking those in society to murder when they might not have otherwise. Executions cost more money | Brutalitization effect |
| Lobbying Working on legislative staffs Providing expert witness testimony or briefs | Avenues to influencing public policy |
| “a friend of the court…a bystander, who without having an interest in the case, of their own knowledge makes a suggestion on a point of law or of fact for the information of the presiding judge” | Amicus curiae briefs |
| Impact of immigration on families Homosexuality (marriage; military; sodomy laws; boy scouts) Juvenile justice (execution; LWOP) Use of race in college admissions Constitutional issues in compelled insanity evaluations (e.g., self-incrimination, right | Brief examples |
| Science-Translation brief Advocacy brief | Types of amicus briefs |
| an “objective summary of research” | Science-Translation brief: |
| “takes a position on some legal or public policy issue” | Advocacy brief: |
| Ake was diagnosed with schizophrenia and sent to Eastern State Hospital Court refused to pay for an expert on insanity (an affirmative defense) Defense failed | Ake v. Oklahoma |
| More conviction prone than other juries Less “representative” of the community The Constitution does not preclude death qualifying juries: | Death Qualified Juries |
| The JURY POOL must be representative, not the actual jury Being more “conviction prone” is not the same as pointing out a specific bias by a specific juror (or jury) against a specific defendant. | death qualifying juries: |
| “Parental notification statutes are actually destructive of the family role in child rearing.” APA brief argued that adolescents typically have good reasons not to inform their parents & can make competent choices They “differ very little” from adults i | Abortions among minors |
| Confidentiality issues Insurance/reimbursement policies OPA focus in 2013 Licensure Prescription privileges Therapy over the use of medications | Guild Issues |
| Most often based on: Ineffective assistance of counsel Public defenders who are inexperienced, poorly paid, or given insufficient resources to hire experts | Appeals |
| Knowing what is about to happen to you Appreciating the consequences Understanding the reason for which you are being executed | Competency |
| potential jurors must be able to follow the law or they may be removed for cause. Jurors are less affected by mitigation because of the fundamental attribution error. Jurors do not sufficiently understand aggravating/mitigating factors. | Research Opposing the Death Penalty |
| Pressure on police and prosecutors lead to wrongful convictions Predictions of future violence (in prison) are not accurate Competency (for execution) evaluations are not thorough] Competency is a low threshold | Research Opposing the Death Penalty |
| Claims of Mental Retardation Claims of mental illness-the next frontier APA, American Bar Association, American Psychiatric Association, and NAMI issued joint recommendations Reliability/validity of diagnosis??? Mitigation | Use of experts to avoid capital punishment |
| “Get the message out” Achieve court rulings consistent with APA’s goals | APA Motivations |
Created by:
klmd3014
Popular Psychology sets