Criminal Behavior: Forensic Psychology

The Competence to act as one’s own attorney case 1 is about one Mr. L who had been charged of assault and battering a police officer. Mr. L had been referred to a psychologist to determine if he was in a position to stand trial and represent himself before a court of law. Mr. L had refused to be represented by a lawyer after deciding that the attorney allocated him by the state was unwilling to inform him about the state’s conspiracy against him.

The case of MR. L can be explained using the differential association theory. This theory holds that criminal behavior is learned and that this happens as people become more and more associated with people who are more likely to commit crimes (Heilbrun, Marczyk, & DeMatteo, 2002). In the case of Mr. L, the frequency of visiting bars is the main factor. He apparently goes to bars 3-4 times a week and takes 6 or more drinks. It is evident that bars have a higher tendency of crime and are therefore more likely to be the place Mr. L leaned crime.

On the other hand, Mr. L was brought up in a family of alcoholics to some extent. The father has been described as an alcoholic and the brother had been rehabilitated on grounds of alcoholism. Mr. L was himself a drug and alcohol user. He had mental issues that were founded on his drug use habits and was drunk on about half the days in a week.

Mr. L is a criminal. He is capable of answering questions to a satisfactory level. He understands the legal implications of the assault act that he committed along with his legal rights. He has been involved in multiple acts of assault in his host community. The acts of crime cannot be blamed on his mental status since while he is not intoxicated he looks alright and behaves like an average individual (Simester & Sullivan, 2003). It can however be blamed on his drug use for which he is expected to manage.

Case 2 on Miranda rights waiver concerns an African American male who is charged with a series of crimes including attempted murder, assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, rape and related charges. The case sought to determine Mr. Doe was in a position to waive his Miranda rights. This case was raised after it was determined that the Mr. Doe was incapable of understanding his rights when they were read to him. Furthermore, he required that the rights be read to him at least twice before he could paraphrase it.

The criminal behavior of Mr. Doe could be explained using Lombroso theory. Lombroso held that there were criminals who were born with the criminality in them and those who were mentally ill (Putwain & Sammons, 2013; Walsh & Hemmens, 2014). Mr. Doe falls in the second category. While Mr. Doe may have committed the crime, it is also likely that the crimes committed were not motivated by choice. Instead, they may have been motivated by his mental status.

There is insufficient evidence on Mr. Doe’s guilt or lack thereof. The evidence presented in this case however show that the case should not continue at the present. Mr. Doe is incapable of waiving his Miranda rights. In that position, it is impossible to complete the case in his current state. He should either be taken into a mental institution to avoid placing him in the society if he is determined to be dangerous or he should be released if it is determined that he is not in a position to pose harm to the society (Wilcox, Land & Hunt, 2003).

Case 2 on criminal responsibility is about Mr. Jonathan Apple who was charged of having committed a second degree murder. The case involves determining if Mr. Apple is responsible for the criminal act especially keeping in mind the fact that he was regarded as having a medical history of mental illness. He also has a criminal record. At the age of 14, he was incarcerated after being found guilty of having committed rape against his step sister.

The criminal behavior of Mr. Apple can be explained using the social control theory. The social control theory depicts that criminal behavior is motivated by the external environment of an individual. If an individual is in a society where crime is common, then they are likely to commit crime (Henderson & Boostrom, 1989). Moreover, certain age groups are more likely to commit crime than others. There is evidence in the case that Mr. Apple was a fan of violent video games which he played along with other individuals. This was sufficient to nurture the criminal behavior in him.

Mr. Apple is guilty of the offense charged against him. First, he has a history of crime and this incriminates him to some extent. He cannot result to his mental status in this case since he has a clean medical history for the all through his adult life (Fletcher, 2012). He also does not show any difficulty in dealing with the justice system. He is for example in a position to understand his rights once they are explained to him. He also defends himself based on arguments based on self defense and argues it was an accident.

References

Fletcher, G. (2012). The Theory of Criminal Liability and International Criminal Law. Journal Of International Criminal Justice, 10(5), 1029-1044. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqs086

Heilbrun, K., Marczyk, G. R., & DeMatteo, D. (2002). Forensic mental health assessment: A casebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Henderson, J., & Boostrom, R. (1989). Criminal Justice Theory: Anarchy Reigns. Journal Of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 5(1), 29-39. doi:10.1177/104398628900500104

Putwain, D., & Sammons, A. (2013). Psychology and Crime. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Simester, A., & Sullivan, G. (2003). Criminal law. Oxford: Hart Pub.

Walsh, A., & Hemmens, C. (2014). Introduction to criminology: A text/reader.

Wilcox, P., Land, K., & Hunt, S. (2003). Criminal circumstance. New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc.