Perspectives on Truth- Understanding Psychopathological Factors in Criminal Cases
The process of convicting a criminal is laborious and mandates precision from involved participants. Convicting a criminal for their crime requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. As such, an extensive investigation must be conducted to ensure the defendant in a criminal case was sane at the time of committing a crime and that the verdict received is fair. Investigation of a defendant’s proof of guilt must be thorough and should involve several parties, where possible. For instance, if a police officer from the Metropolitan Police Academy apprehends a criminal, they should ensure that the forensic psychologist and prosecutor have assessed the defendant before being declared fit to stand trial. The mentioned professionals have various ways to determine if a crime happened and the sanity level of the defendant at the time of committing an offense, determining the truth, which is unique to their level of expertise.
Police: Discovering the Truth in Investigations
The Metropolitan Police Academy trains its students on how to conduct fair but thorough investigations to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a criminal is responsible and should be incarcerated or fined. For instance, when a police officer is informed of a crime conducted at a place, they will be deployed by their superior to visit the crime scene. If the police officer is lucky, they may apprehend the criminal and have them arrested and booked for trial later. In the above scenario, the police officer possesses proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty and deserves to be prosecuted in court. However, in some circumstances, the criminal may have already left the crime scene when the police officer arrives to collect evidence. The law enforcement officer will use various techniques to ensure the criminal is apprehended and prosecuted in such a case.
Truth for police officers is sought through collected evidence at the crime scene. Therefore, a police officer trained at Metropolitan Police Academy will first interrogate witnesses at the crime scene to determine what they heard, saw, felt, or tasted (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). Witnesses are a valuable source of data and can give evidence that will have the criminal apprehended quickly. Therefore, in a court of law, if a police officer is requested to present their evidence to prove the witness is guilty, they may ask the witness to state their experience, and the witness’s statement will be considered when deciding the defendant’s fate.
Alternatively, the police officer may lack witnesses at the crime scene but can take measurements and pictures or make general observations that can be used to prosecute the criminal. Furthermore, the police officer can collect objects at the crime scene that prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). For instance, if there is a blood-stained weapon at the crime scene, the police officer will collect it and then present it in court as evidence that the defendant is guilty. The police officer can also request the station to accord them a search warrant for them to check private property for evidence. The police officer can also collect saliva samples, blood samples, and fingerprints to be analyzed at the laboratory. Alternatively, the police can interrogate a criminal to determine if they committed a crime. For a well-trained policeman, the above measures are truths beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is worth prosecuting, as they are guilty of a criminal offense. Therefore, in a court of law, the police officer will present the above truths as proof that the defendant is guilty and should be apprehended, even if they claim insanity.
Forensic Psychologist: Determining the Truth about Defendants
The defendant may claim they were unaware of the outcomes of their criminal offenses in a court of law. Under such a scenario, the judge may order for a forensic psychologist to determine the competency of the criminal. Competency in a criminal case proves several factors. Firstly, the forensic psychologist may prove beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of committing the crime, the defendant was insane and could not perceive legal criminal responsibility for their actions (American Psychological Association, n.d.). Further, the above expert uses their knowledge to prove that at the time of committing a crime, the defendant was not in their usual mental state to determine the ethical outcomes of their actions. Moreover, the forensic psychologist proves that the defendant believed their actions were morally upright, illustrating insanity when committing the crime. Therefore, the main job of the forensic psychologist is to determine that the defendant is insane and should be not be prosecuted.
The forensic psychologist may use several strategies to execute the above mandates to prove that the defendant is not competent enough to be tried, owing to their defective mental state. For instance, the criminal may use the Slobogin Mental Screening Evaluation tool to check for the competence of the defendant to stand trial. Additionally, the forensic psychologist may use the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales to check for the competence of the defendant to be tried in court (Forensic Psychology Edu, 2021). Further, the mentioned professional can use the Competence to Stand Trial Assessment Instrument, which has 13 areas the defendant is assessed on to check their competency. If the defendant is in Georgia, they can be assessed using the Georgia Court Competency Test, which checks if they are aware of the facts of a criminal proceeding in court. The above scientific tools act as truth sources for the forensic psychologist to determine beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was of unstable mental condition at the time of committing a crime and that they are not competent enough to be tried in court.
Prosecutors: Using the Law to Determine the Truth
Lastly, the defendant may be tried in court by the prosecutor to prove they were of sane mind at the time of committing a crime and should be jailed or fined. Prosecutors use several strategies to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a criminal deserves punitive measures, even if they claim insanity. For instance, the prosecutor assesses the judge’s previous rulings and checks for a pattern that has resulted in the successful apprehension of other defendants in the past. Therefore, in the court of law, the prosecutor will use the case laws, objections, or arguments that have been proven to compel the judge to prosecute criminals before, even if they insist they were insane at the time of committing a crime.
Additionally, the prosecutor can ensure that they are well-prepared to counter any defenses in a court of law. For instance, the defendant may claim there was no witness at the crime scene, a witness is lying, the arguments against them are weak, or the forensic psychologist is incompetent. The prosecutor may counter the defendant’s claims by using arguments, such as the need to adhere to the law, the plaintiff’s right to a fair trial, legal definitions, and quantity versus quality reasonable doubt aspects (American Bar Association, 2017). Using the above strategies, the prosecutor presents their truths that the defendant deserves to be prosecuted and should be imprisoned, despite their insanity plea.
Conclusion
Criminal offenses can be prosecuted in a court of law even if the defendant proves they were insane at the time of committing a crime. For instance, the prosecutor may prove using the law that the criminal deserves to be apprehended by citing legal definitions. Similarly, police officers can present witness statements, blood samples, saliva culture, or objects used to commit a crime to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a criminal should be apprehended even if they say they are mentally incapacitated. Lastly, a judge can order a forensic psychologist to check if the defendant is insane as they claim and if they are competent to be tried for a crime they committed. Overall, forensic psychologists, police officers, and prosecutors use different strategies to seek the truth on a defendant’s mental state.
References
American Bar Association. (2017). Standards for the prosecution function. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. https://www.apa.org. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology
Forensic Psychology Edu. (2021, June 29). Forensic psychology in determining insanity and competency to stand trial | Job description, certification, and practice guidelines. How to Become a Forensic Psychologist | Forensic Psychology Education and Licensing Guides by State. https://www.forensicpsychologyedu.org/insanity-and-competency-to-stand-trial/
U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Critical Criminal Justice Issues. National Institute of Justice.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Scenario: You are doing a presentation at the Metropolitan Police Academy in a major city. Your presentation for the afternoon is on the definition of truth when dealing with cases in which the defendant has a psychopathological issue that may have contributed to his or her commission of a crime. A mixture of law enforcement officers, forensic psychologists, and prosecutors from the State’s Attorney’s Office will attend this lecture. You know that police, forensic psychologists, and prosecutors all believe in the truth, but their definitions of truth may vary.
Perspectives on Truth- Understanding Psychopathological Factors in Criminal Cases
To avoid conflict in the lesson, you prepare a handout in the form of a white paper of 3–5 pages. You explore the definition of truth from the perspectives of each of the class participants (police, forensic psychologists, and prosecutors). Include the following in your white paper:
• Explain the criteria that police investigators have in their finding of the truth as it relates to the investigative outcome of their respective cases.
• Define the criteria the forensic psychologists use to determine the truth that they concludes about the defendant(s) in their respective cases.
• Describe the method by which the prosecutors use in determining what they define as the truth in their respective cases.