Criminal Trials and Mental Disorders:
The complicated relationship between defendants with mental health disorders and the criminal justice system The American criminal justice system is based on the bedrock principles of fairness and justice for all. In striving to ensure that all criminal defendants are treated equally under the law,...
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Elektronisch E-Book |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
New York, NY
New York University Press
[2019]
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Psychoanalytic Crossroads
7 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | URL des Erstveröffentlichers |
| Zusammenfassung: | The complicated relationship between defendants with mental health disorders and the criminal justice system The American criminal justice system is based on the bedrock principles of fairness and justice for all. In striving to ensure that all criminal defendants are treated equally under the law, it endeavors to handle similar cases in similar fashion, attempting to apply rules and procedures even-handedly regardless of a defendant’s social class, race, ethnicity, or gender. Yet, the criminal justice system has also recognized exceptions when special circumstances underlie a defendant’s behavior or are likely to skew the defendant’s trial. One of the most controversial set of exceptions –often poorly articulated and inconsistently applied – involves criminal defendants with a mental disorder. A series of special rules and procedures has evolved over the centuries, often without fanfare and even today with little systematic examination, that lawyers and judges apply to cases involving defendants with a mental disorder. This book provides an analysis of the key issues in this dynamic interplay between individuals with a mental disorder and the criminal justice system. The volume identifies the various stages of criminal justice proceedings when the mental status of a defendant may be relevant, associated legal and policy issues, the history and evolution of these issues, and how they are currently resolved. To assist this exploration, the text also offers an overview of mental disorders, their relevance to criminal proceedings, how forensic mental health assessments are conducted and employed during these proceedings, and their application to competency and responsibility determinations. In sum, this book provides an important resource for students and scholars with an interest in mental health, law, and criminal justice |
| Beschreibung: | Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 08. Jun 2020) |
| Beschreibung: | 1 online resource |
| ISBN: | 9781479850754 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nmm a2200000zcb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV046761501 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 00000000000000.0 | ||
| 007 | cr|uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 200615s2019 |||| o||u| ||||||eng d | ||
| 020 | |a 9781479850754 |9 978-1-4798-5075-4 | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.18574/9781479850754 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (ZDB-23-DGG)9781479850754 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)1164651588 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV046761501 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rda | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng | |
| 082 | 0 | |a 345.73/04 |2 23 | |
| 100 | 1 | |a Hafemeister, Thomas L. |e Verfasser |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Criminal Trials and Mental Disorders |c Thomas L. Hafemeister |
| 264 | 1 | |a New York, NY |b New York University Press |c [2019] | |
| 264 | 4 | |c © 2019 | |
| 300 | |a 1 online resource | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 0 | |a Psychoanalytic Crossroads |v 7 | |
| 500 | |a Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 08. Jun 2020) | ||
| 520 | |a The complicated relationship between defendants with mental health disorders and the criminal justice system The American criminal justice system is based on the bedrock principles of fairness and justice for all. In striving to ensure that all criminal defendants are treated equally under the law, it endeavors to handle similar cases in similar fashion, attempting to apply rules and procedures even-handedly regardless of a defendant’s social class, race, ethnicity, or gender. Yet, the criminal justice system has also recognized exceptions when special circumstances underlie a defendant’s behavior or are likely to skew the defendant’s trial. One of the most controversial set of exceptions –often poorly articulated and inconsistently applied – involves criminal defendants with a mental disorder. A series of special rules and procedures has evolved over the centuries, often without fanfare and even today with little systematic examination, that lawyers and judges apply to cases involving defendants with a mental disorder. This book provides an analysis of the key issues in this dynamic interplay between individuals with a mental disorder and the criminal justice system. The volume identifies the various stages of criminal justice proceedings when the mental status of a defendant may be relevant, associated legal and policy issues, the history and evolution of these issues, and how they are currently resolved. To assist this exploration, the text also offers an overview of mental disorders, their relevance to criminal proceedings, how forensic mental health assessments are conducted and employed during these proceedings, and their application to competency and responsibility determinations. In sum, this book provides an important resource for students and scholars with an interest in mental health, law, and criminal justice | ||
| 546 | |a In English | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Pate v. Robinson | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooter | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Sell v. United States | |
| 650 | 4 | |a The Unabomber | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Virginia Tech Shooter | |
| 650 | 4 | |a abolition of the insanity defense;absence at trial;actus reus;American Law Institute Model Penal Code test;amnesia;antisocial personality disorder;assessing malingering;automatic commitment;battered spouse/child defense;bipolar disorders;bona fide doubt;Boston Marathon Bombing;broken window approach;burden of proof;categorical incompetence;Clark v. Arizona;clear and convincing evidence;clinical mental health evaluations and treatment;Colorado v. Connelly;competence to confess;competence to plead guilty;competence to represent oneself;competence to testify;competence to waive the right to an attorney;competency to stand trial;conditional release and release revocations;consult with assist attorney;Cooper v. | |
| 650 | 4 | |a / Oklahoma;correctional facility evaluations;correctional facility placements;criminal justice system;criminal justice system alternatives;criminal proceedings;criminal trial proceedings;crisis intervention teams;de facto mental health care system;deific decree defense;demeanor at trial;depressive disorders;dissociative disorders;Drope v. Missouri;Durham rule;Dusky v. United States;Elizabeth Smart Kidnapping;evaluation locations;evaluator qualifications;fair and just trials;federal test;forensic mental health assessment process;forensic mental health assessments;forensic mental health evaluations;Foucha v. Louisiana;functional test;Gabrielle Giffords Shooting;Godinez v. Moran;guilty but mentally ill verdict;history of irrational behaviour;impact of medication;impact of mental disorders;incompetent to stand trial;indefinite length of stay;Indiana v. | |
| 650 | 4 | |a / Edwards;indicators of malingering;initial evaluation request;insanity acquittee post-trial dispositions;insanity defense;insanity defense myths;irresistible impulse test;Jackson v. Indiana;Jones v. United States;judicial hearings;justification versus excuse;law enforcement discretion;Long Island Rail Road Shooter;malingering;Medina v. California;mental disorder myths;mental disorders and criminal behavior;mental disorders and violence;mental health courts;Miranda rights;Miranda v. Arizona;Montana v. Egelhoff;neurocognitive disorders | |
| 650 | 4 | |a nonadversarial team approach | |
| 650 | 4 | |a obsessive-compulsive disorders | |
| 650 | 4 | |a obtaining experts for indigent defendant | |
| 650 | 4 | |a outpatient community treatment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a personality disorders | |
| 650 | 4 | |a present mental capacity | |
| 650 | 4 | |a presumption of incompetence | |
| 650 | 4 | |a psychiatric facility placements | |
| 650 | 4 | |a psychodynamic models | |
| 650 | 4 | |a psychotic disorders | |
| 650 | 4 | |a reporting requirements | |
| 650 | 4 | |a right to a jury | |
| 650 | 4 | |a risk assessments | |
| 650 | 4 | |a scope of expert’s assistance | |
| 650 | 4 | |a second evaluations | |
| 650 | 4 | |a shifting/raising burden of proof | |
| 650 | 4 | |a sleep-walking defense | |
| 650 | 4 | |a standard of proof | |
| 650 | 4 | |a standards for establishing competence | |
| 650 | 4 | |a sua sponte | |
| 650 | 4 | |a the insanity defense and variations | |
| 650 | 4 | |a therapeutic jurisprudence | |
| 650 | 4 | |a trauma and stressor-related disorders | |
| 650 | 4 | |a treatment over objection | |
| 650 | 7 | |a PSYCHOLOGY / Mental Health |2 bisacsh | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Forensic psychiatry |z United States | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Insanity (Law) |z United States | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Insanity defense |z United States | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Mentally ill offenders |x Legal status, laws, etc |z United States | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Strafverfahren |0 (DE-588)4116634-6 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Prozessfähigkeit |0 (DE-588)4176057-8 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Psychische Störung |0 (DE-588)4047686-8 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Psychisch Kranker |0 (DE-588)4047682-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Schuldunfähigkeit |0 (DE-588)4136816-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a USA |0 (DE-588)4078704-7 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a USA |0 (DE-588)4078704-7 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Strafverfahren |0 (DE-588)4116634-6 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Psychische Störung |0 (DE-588)4047686-8 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Psychisch Kranker |0 (DE-588)4047682-0 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 4 | |a Prozessfähigkeit |0 (DE-588)4176057-8 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 5 | |a Schuldunfähigkeit |0 (DE-588)4136816-2 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |8 1\p |5 DE-604 | |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9781479850754 |x Verlag |z URL des Erstveröffentlichers |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a ZDB-23-DGG | ||
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-032171038 | ||
| 883 | 1 | |8 1\p |a cgwrk |d 20201028 |q DE-101 |u https://d-nb.info/provenance/plan#cgwrk | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804181528056430592 |
|---|---|
| adam_txt | |
| any_adam_object | |
| any_adam_object_boolean | |
| author | Hafemeister, Thomas L. |
| author_facet | Hafemeister, Thomas L. |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Hafemeister, Thomas L. |
| author_variant | t l h tl tlh |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV046761501 |
| collection | ZDB-23-DGG |
| ctrlnum | (ZDB-23-DGG)9781479850754 (OCoLC)1164651588 (DE-599)BVBBV046761501 |
| dewey-full | 345.73/04 |
| dewey-hundreds | 300 - Social sciences |
| dewey-ones | 345 - Criminal law |
| dewey-raw | 345.73/04 |
| dewey-search | 345.73/04 |
| dewey-sort | 3345.73 14 |
| dewey-tens | 340 - Law |
| discipline | Rechtswissenschaft |
| discipline_str_mv | Rechtswissenschaft |
| format | Electronic eBook |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>07566nmm a2200973zcb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV046761501</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">00000000000000.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr|uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200615s2019 |||| o||u| ||||||eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9781479850754</subfield><subfield code="9">978-1-4798-5075-4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.18574/9781479850754</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ZDB-23-DGG)9781479850754</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)1164651588</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV046761501</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">345.73/04</subfield><subfield code="2">23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hafemeister, Thomas L.</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Criminal Trials and Mental Disorders</subfield><subfield code="c">Thomas L. Hafemeister</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">New York, NY</subfield><subfield code="b">New York University Press</subfield><subfield code="c">[2019]</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="c">© 2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1 online resource</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Psychoanalytic Crossroads</subfield><subfield code="v">7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 08. Jun 2020)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The complicated relationship between defendants with mental health disorders and the criminal justice system The American criminal justice system is based on the bedrock principles of fairness and justice for all. In striving to ensure that all criminal defendants are treated equally under the law, it endeavors to handle similar cases in similar fashion, attempting to apply rules and procedures even-handedly regardless of a defendant’s social class, race, ethnicity, or gender. Yet, the criminal justice system has also recognized exceptions when special circumstances underlie a defendant’s behavior or are likely to skew the defendant’s trial. One of the most controversial set of exceptions –often poorly articulated and inconsistently applied – involves criminal defendants with a mental disorder. A series of special rules and procedures has evolved over the centuries, often without fanfare and even today with little systematic examination, that lawyers and judges apply to cases involving defendants with a mental disorder. This book provides an analysis of the key issues in this dynamic interplay between individuals with a mental disorder and the criminal justice system. The volume identifies the various stages of criminal justice proceedings when the mental status of a defendant may be relevant, associated legal and policy issues, the history and evolution of these issues, and how they are currently resolved. To assist this exploration, the text also offers an overview of mental disorders, their relevance to criminal proceedings, how forensic mental health assessments are conducted and employed during these proceedings, and their application to competency and responsibility determinations. In sum, this book provides an important resource for students and scholars with an interest in mental health, law, and criminal justice</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="546" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In English</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pate v. Robinson</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooter</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Sell v. United States</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The Unabomber</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Virginia Tech Shooter</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">abolition of the insanity defense;absence at trial;actus reus;American Law Institute Model Penal Code test;amnesia;antisocial personality disorder;assessing malingering;automatic commitment;battered spouse/child defense;bipolar disorders;bona fide doubt;Boston Marathon Bombing;broken window approach;burden of proof;categorical incompetence;Clark v. Arizona;clear and convincing evidence;clinical mental health evaluations and treatment;Colorado v. Connelly;competence to confess;competence to plead guilty;competence to represent oneself;competence to testify;competence to waive the right to an attorney;competency to stand trial;conditional release and release revocations;consult with assist attorney;Cooper v. </subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a"> / Oklahoma;correctional facility evaluations;correctional facility placements;criminal justice system;criminal justice system alternatives;criminal proceedings;criminal trial proceedings;crisis intervention teams;de facto mental health care system;deific decree defense;demeanor at trial;depressive disorders;dissociative disorders;Drope v. Missouri;Durham rule;Dusky v. United States;Elizabeth Smart Kidnapping;evaluation locations;evaluator qualifications;fair and just trials;federal test;forensic mental health assessment process;forensic mental health assessments;forensic mental health evaluations;Foucha v. Louisiana;functional test;Gabrielle Giffords Shooting;Godinez v. Moran;guilty but mentally ill verdict;history of irrational behaviour;impact of medication;impact of mental disorders;incompetent to stand trial;indefinite length of stay;Indiana v. </subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a"> / Edwards;indicators of malingering;initial evaluation request;insanity acquittee post-trial dispositions;insanity defense;insanity defense myths;irresistible impulse test;Jackson v. Indiana;Jones v. United States;judicial hearings;justification versus excuse;law enforcement discretion;Long Island Rail Road Shooter;malingering;Medina v. California;mental disorder myths;mental disorders and criminal behavior;mental disorders and violence;mental health courts;Miranda rights;Miranda v. Arizona;Montana v. Egelhoff;neurocognitive disorders</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">nonadversarial team approach</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">obsessive-compulsive disorders</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">obtaining experts for indigent defendant</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">outpatient community treatment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">personality disorders</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">present mental capacity</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">presumption of incompetence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">psychiatric facility placements</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">psychodynamic models</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">psychotic disorders</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">reporting requirements</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">right to a jury</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">risk assessments</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">scope of expert’s assistance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">second evaluations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">shifting/raising burden of proof</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">sleep-walking defense</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">standard of proof</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">standards for establishing competence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">sua sponte</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">the insanity defense and variations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">therapeutic jurisprudence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">trauma and stressor-related disorders</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">treatment over objection</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">PSYCHOLOGY / Mental Health</subfield><subfield code="2">bisacsh</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Forensic psychiatry</subfield><subfield code="z">United States</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Insanity (Law)</subfield><subfield code="z">United States</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Insanity defense</subfield><subfield code="z">United States</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mentally ill offenders</subfield><subfield code="x">Legal status, laws, etc</subfield><subfield code="z">United States</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Strafverfahren</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4116634-6</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Prozessfähigkeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4176057-8</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Psychische Störung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4047686-8</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Psychisch Kranker</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4047682-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Schuldunfähigkeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4136816-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">USA</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4078704-7</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">USA</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4078704-7</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Strafverfahren</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4116634-6</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Psychische Störung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4047686-8</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Psychisch Kranker</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4047682-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Prozessfähigkeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4176057-8</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="5"><subfield code="a">Schuldunfähigkeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4136816-2</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="8">1\p</subfield><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9781479850754</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">URL des Erstveröffentlichers</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-23-DGG</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-032171038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="883" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="8">1\p</subfield><subfield code="a">cgwrk</subfield><subfield code="d">20201028</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-101</subfield><subfield code="u">https://d-nb.info/provenance/plan#cgwrk</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | USA (DE-588)4078704-7 gnd |
| geographic_facet | USA |
| id | DE-604.BV046761501 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-03T14:44:36Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-10T08:53:05Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9781479850754 |
| language | English |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-032171038 |
| oclc_num | 1164651588 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| physical | 1 online resource |
| psigel | ZDB-23-DGG |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publishDateSearch | 2019 |
| publishDateSort | 2019 |
| publisher | New York University Press |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | Psychoanalytic Crossroads |
| spelling | Hafemeister, Thomas L. Verfasser aut Criminal Trials and Mental Disorders Thomas L. Hafemeister New York, NY New York University Press [2019] © 2019 1 online resource txt rdacontent c rdamedia cr rdacarrier Psychoanalytic Crossroads 7 Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 08. Jun 2020) The complicated relationship between defendants with mental health disorders and the criminal justice system The American criminal justice system is based on the bedrock principles of fairness and justice for all. In striving to ensure that all criminal defendants are treated equally under the law, it endeavors to handle similar cases in similar fashion, attempting to apply rules and procedures even-handedly regardless of a defendant’s social class, race, ethnicity, or gender. Yet, the criminal justice system has also recognized exceptions when special circumstances underlie a defendant’s behavior or are likely to skew the defendant’s trial. One of the most controversial set of exceptions –often poorly articulated and inconsistently applied – involves criminal defendants with a mental disorder. A series of special rules and procedures has evolved over the centuries, often without fanfare and even today with little systematic examination, that lawyers and judges apply to cases involving defendants with a mental disorder. This book provides an analysis of the key issues in this dynamic interplay between individuals with a mental disorder and the criminal justice system. The volume identifies the various stages of criminal justice proceedings when the mental status of a defendant may be relevant, associated legal and policy issues, the history and evolution of these issues, and how they are currently resolved. To assist this exploration, the text also offers an overview of mental disorders, their relevance to criminal proceedings, how forensic mental health assessments are conducted and employed during these proceedings, and their application to competency and responsibility determinations. In sum, this book provides an important resource for students and scholars with an interest in mental health, law, and criminal justice In English Pate v. Robinson Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooter Sell v. United States The Unabomber Virginia Tech Shooter abolition of the insanity defense;absence at trial;actus reus;American Law Institute Model Penal Code test;amnesia;antisocial personality disorder;assessing malingering;automatic commitment;battered spouse/child defense;bipolar disorders;bona fide doubt;Boston Marathon Bombing;broken window approach;burden of proof;categorical incompetence;Clark v. Arizona;clear and convincing evidence;clinical mental health evaluations and treatment;Colorado v. Connelly;competence to confess;competence to plead guilty;competence to represent oneself;competence to testify;competence to waive the right to an attorney;competency to stand trial;conditional release and release revocations;consult with assist attorney;Cooper v. / Oklahoma;correctional facility evaluations;correctional facility placements;criminal justice system;criminal justice system alternatives;criminal proceedings;criminal trial proceedings;crisis intervention teams;de facto mental health care system;deific decree defense;demeanor at trial;depressive disorders;dissociative disorders;Drope v. Missouri;Durham rule;Dusky v. United States;Elizabeth Smart Kidnapping;evaluation locations;evaluator qualifications;fair and just trials;federal test;forensic mental health assessment process;forensic mental health assessments;forensic mental health evaluations;Foucha v. Louisiana;functional test;Gabrielle Giffords Shooting;Godinez v. Moran;guilty but mentally ill verdict;history of irrational behaviour;impact of medication;impact of mental disorders;incompetent to stand trial;indefinite length of stay;Indiana v. / Edwards;indicators of malingering;initial evaluation request;insanity acquittee post-trial dispositions;insanity defense;insanity defense myths;irresistible impulse test;Jackson v. Indiana;Jones v. United States;judicial hearings;justification versus excuse;law enforcement discretion;Long Island Rail Road Shooter;malingering;Medina v. California;mental disorder myths;mental disorders and criminal behavior;mental disorders and violence;mental health courts;Miranda rights;Miranda v. Arizona;Montana v. Egelhoff;neurocognitive disorders nonadversarial team approach obsessive-compulsive disorders obtaining experts for indigent defendant outpatient community treatment personality disorders present mental capacity presumption of incompetence psychiatric facility placements psychodynamic models psychotic disorders reporting requirements right to a jury risk assessments scope of expert’s assistance second evaluations shifting/raising burden of proof sleep-walking defense standard of proof standards for establishing competence sua sponte the insanity defense and variations therapeutic jurisprudence trauma and stressor-related disorders treatment over objection PSYCHOLOGY / Mental Health bisacsh Forensic psychiatry United States Insanity (Law) United States Insanity defense United States Mentally ill offenders Legal status, laws, etc United States Strafverfahren (DE-588)4116634-6 gnd rswk-swf Prozessfähigkeit (DE-588)4176057-8 gnd rswk-swf Psychische Störung (DE-588)4047686-8 gnd rswk-swf Psychisch Kranker (DE-588)4047682-0 gnd rswk-swf Schuldunfähigkeit (DE-588)4136816-2 gnd rswk-swf USA (DE-588)4078704-7 gnd rswk-swf USA (DE-588)4078704-7 g Strafverfahren (DE-588)4116634-6 s Psychische Störung (DE-588)4047686-8 s Psychisch Kranker (DE-588)4047682-0 s Prozessfähigkeit (DE-588)4176057-8 s Schuldunfähigkeit (DE-588)4136816-2 s 1\p DE-604 https://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9781479850754 Verlag URL des Erstveröffentlichers Volltext 1\p cgwrk 20201028 DE-101 https://d-nb.info/provenance/plan#cgwrk |
| spellingShingle | Hafemeister, Thomas L. Criminal Trials and Mental Disorders Pate v. Robinson Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooter Sell v. United States The Unabomber Virginia Tech Shooter abolition of the insanity defense;absence at trial;actus reus;American Law Institute Model Penal Code test;amnesia;antisocial personality disorder;assessing malingering;automatic commitment;battered spouse/child defense;bipolar disorders;bona fide doubt;Boston Marathon Bombing;broken window approach;burden of proof;categorical incompetence;Clark v. Arizona;clear and convincing evidence;clinical mental health evaluations and treatment;Colorado v. Connelly;competence to confess;competence to plead guilty;competence to represent oneself;competence to testify;competence to waive the right to an attorney;competency to stand trial;conditional release and release revocations;consult with assist attorney;Cooper v. / Oklahoma;correctional facility evaluations;correctional facility placements;criminal justice system;criminal justice system alternatives;criminal proceedings;criminal trial proceedings;crisis intervention teams;de facto mental health care system;deific decree defense;demeanor at trial;depressive disorders;dissociative disorders;Drope v. Missouri;Durham rule;Dusky v. United States;Elizabeth Smart Kidnapping;evaluation locations;evaluator qualifications;fair and just trials;federal test;forensic mental health assessment process;forensic mental health assessments;forensic mental health evaluations;Foucha v. Louisiana;functional test;Gabrielle Giffords Shooting;Godinez v. Moran;guilty but mentally ill verdict;history of irrational behaviour;impact of medication;impact of mental disorders;incompetent to stand trial;indefinite length of stay;Indiana v. / Edwards;indicators of malingering;initial evaluation request;insanity acquittee post-trial dispositions;insanity defense;insanity defense myths;irresistible impulse test;Jackson v. Indiana;Jones v. United States;judicial hearings;justification versus excuse;law enforcement discretion;Long Island Rail Road Shooter;malingering;Medina v. California;mental disorder myths;mental disorders and criminal behavior;mental disorders and violence;mental health courts;Miranda rights;Miranda v. Arizona;Montana v. Egelhoff;neurocognitive disorders nonadversarial team approach obsessive-compulsive disorders obtaining experts for indigent defendant outpatient community treatment personality disorders present mental capacity presumption of incompetence psychiatric facility placements psychodynamic models psychotic disorders reporting requirements right to a jury risk assessments scope of expert’s assistance second evaluations shifting/raising burden of proof sleep-walking defense standard of proof standards for establishing competence sua sponte the insanity defense and variations therapeutic jurisprudence trauma and stressor-related disorders treatment over objection PSYCHOLOGY / Mental Health bisacsh Forensic psychiatry United States Insanity (Law) United States Insanity defense United States Mentally ill offenders Legal status, laws, etc United States Strafverfahren (DE-588)4116634-6 gnd Prozessfähigkeit (DE-588)4176057-8 gnd Psychische Störung (DE-588)4047686-8 gnd Psychisch Kranker (DE-588)4047682-0 gnd Schuldunfähigkeit (DE-588)4136816-2 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4116634-6 (DE-588)4176057-8 (DE-588)4047686-8 (DE-588)4047682-0 (DE-588)4136816-2 (DE-588)4078704-7 |
| title | Criminal Trials and Mental Disorders |
| title_auth | Criminal Trials and Mental Disorders |
| title_exact_search | Criminal Trials and Mental Disorders |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Criminal Trials and Mental Disorders |
| title_full | Criminal Trials and Mental Disorders Thomas L. Hafemeister |
| title_fullStr | Criminal Trials and Mental Disorders Thomas L. Hafemeister |
| title_full_unstemmed | Criminal Trials and Mental Disorders Thomas L. Hafemeister |
| title_short | Criminal Trials and Mental Disorders |
| title_sort | criminal trials and mental disorders |
| topic | Pate v. Robinson Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooter Sell v. United States The Unabomber Virginia Tech Shooter abolition of the insanity defense;absence at trial;actus reus;American Law Institute Model Penal Code test;amnesia;antisocial personality disorder;assessing malingering;automatic commitment;battered spouse/child defense;bipolar disorders;bona fide doubt;Boston Marathon Bombing;broken window approach;burden of proof;categorical incompetence;Clark v. Arizona;clear and convincing evidence;clinical mental health evaluations and treatment;Colorado v. Connelly;competence to confess;competence to plead guilty;competence to represent oneself;competence to testify;competence to waive the right to an attorney;competency to stand trial;conditional release and release revocations;consult with assist attorney;Cooper v. / Oklahoma;correctional facility evaluations;correctional facility placements;criminal justice system;criminal justice system alternatives;criminal proceedings;criminal trial proceedings;crisis intervention teams;de facto mental health care system;deific decree defense;demeanor at trial;depressive disorders;dissociative disorders;Drope v. Missouri;Durham rule;Dusky v. United States;Elizabeth Smart Kidnapping;evaluation locations;evaluator qualifications;fair and just trials;federal test;forensic mental health assessment process;forensic mental health assessments;forensic mental health evaluations;Foucha v. Louisiana;functional test;Gabrielle Giffords Shooting;Godinez v. Moran;guilty but mentally ill verdict;history of irrational behaviour;impact of medication;impact of mental disorders;incompetent to stand trial;indefinite length of stay;Indiana v. / Edwards;indicators of malingering;initial evaluation request;insanity acquittee post-trial dispositions;insanity defense;insanity defense myths;irresistible impulse test;Jackson v. Indiana;Jones v. United States;judicial hearings;justification versus excuse;law enforcement discretion;Long Island Rail Road Shooter;malingering;Medina v. California;mental disorder myths;mental disorders and criminal behavior;mental disorders and violence;mental health courts;Miranda rights;Miranda v. Arizona;Montana v. Egelhoff;neurocognitive disorders nonadversarial team approach obsessive-compulsive disorders obtaining experts for indigent defendant outpatient community treatment personality disorders present mental capacity presumption of incompetence psychiatric facility placements psychodynamic models psychotic disorders reporting requirements right to a jury risk assessments scope of expert’s assistance second evaluations shifting/raising burden of proof sleep-walking defense standard of proof standards for establishing competence sua sponte the insanity defense and variations therapeutic jurisprudence trauma and stressor-related disorders treatment over objection PSYCHOLOGY / Mental Health bisacsh Forensic psychiatry United States Insanity (Law) United States Insanity defense United States Mentally ill offenders Legal status, laws, etc United States Strafverfahren (DE-588)4116634-6 gnd Prozessfähigkeit (DE-588)4176057-8 gnd Psychische Störung (DE-588)4047686-8 gnd Psychisch Kranker (DE-588)4047682-0 gnd Schuldunfähigkeit (DE-588)4136816-2 gnd |
| topic_facet | Pate v. Robinson Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooter Sell v. United States The Unabomber Virginia Tech Shooter abolition of the insanity defense;absence at trial;actus reus;American Law Institute Model Penal Code test;amnesia;antisocial personality disorder;assessing malingering;automatic commitment;battered spouse/child defense;bipolar disorders;bona fide doubt;Boston Marathon Bombing;broken window approach;burden of proof;categorical incompetence;Clark v. Arizona;clear and convincing evidence;clinical mental health evaluations and treatment;Colorado v. Connelly;competence to confess;competence to plead guilty;competence to represent oneself;competence to testify;competence to waive the right to an attorney;competency to stand trial;conditional release and release revocations;consult with assist attorney;Cooper v. / Oklahoma;correctional facility evaluations;correctional facility placements;criminal justice system;criminal justice system alternatives;criminal proceedings;criminal trial proceedings;crisis intervention teams;de facto mental health care system;deific decree defense;demeanor at trial;depressive disorders;dissociative disorders;Drope v. Missouri;Durham rule;Dusky v. United States;Elizabeth Smart Kidnapping;evaluation locations;evaluator qualifications;fair and just trials;federal test;forensic mental health assessment process;forensic mental health assessments;forensic mental health evaluations;Foucha v. Louisiana;functional test;Gabrielle Giffords Shooting;Godinez v. Moran;guilty but mentally ill verdict;history of irrational behaviour;impact of medication;impact of mental disorders;incompetent to stand trial;indefinite length of stay;Indiana v. / Edwards;indicators of malingering;initial evaluation request;insanity acquittee post-trial dispositions;insanity defense;insanity defense myths;irresistible impulse test;Jackson v. Indiana;Jones v. United States;judicial hearings;justification versus excuse;law enforcement discretion;Long Island Rail Road Shooter;malingering;Medina v. California;mental disorder myths;mental disorders and criminal behavior;mental disorders and violence;mental health courts;Miranda rights;Miranda v. Arizona;Montana v. Egelhoff;neurocognitive disorders nonadversarial team approach obsessive-compulsive disorders obtaining experts for indigent defendant outpatient community treatment personality disorders present mental capacity presumption of incompetence psychiatric facility placements psychodynamic models psychotic disorders reporting requirements right to a jury risk assessments scope of expert’s assistance second evaluations shifting/raising burden of proof sleep-walking defense standard of proof standards for establishing competence sua sponte the insanity defense and variations therapeutic jurisprudence trauma and stressor-related disorders treatment over objection PSYCHOLOGY / Mental Health Forensic psychiatry United States Insanity (Law) United States Insanity defense United States Mentally ill offenders Legal status, laws, etc United States Strafverfahren Prozessfähigkeit Psychische Störung Psychisch Kranker Schuldunfähigkeit USA |
| url | https://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9781479850754 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hafemeisterthomasl criminaltrialsandmentaldisorders |