Final exam for psychology and the legal system course
Jenkins v. U.S.
Harlow v. U.S.
Nixon v. Indiana
Jackson v. Indiana
Criminal and civil courts
Trial courts and appellate court
Courts of limited jurisdiction and courts of general jurisdiction
State and federal courts
Preliminary hearing
Evidence suppression hearing
Beyond a reasonable doubt
B or c, depending on the crime
The individual’s competence to be sentenced
Mitigation
The individual's dangerousness
The individual's rehabilitative potential
All of the above
Preponderance of the evidence
Clear and convincing evidence
Beyond a reasonable doubt
B or c, depending on the crime
Jenkins
Kumho Tire
Joiner
Frye
When the evaluation was ordered by the judge
When the evaluation was requested and paid for by the defense
When the evaluation was requested by the prosecutor but paid for by the court
When both the prosecutor and defense request the evaluation
The Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct of the APA strongly discourage such testimony
Courts often want psychologists to provide an opinion on the ultimate issue
Research indicates that the opinions of experts are least influential in pre-trial criminal proceedings
There is lack of consensus among psychologists as to whether such testimony is appropriate
Only b and d are correct
Confessing to a crime
Being sentenced
Refusing the insanity defense
A and c only
Competence is an issue at every stage
Inquisitorial
Disruptive
Adversarial
Impractical
Was delinquent as determined by the lower courts
Had been denied due process in the juvenile court
Should be punished as an adult
Was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
Reliability, validity, general acceptance in the scientific community
Validity, legal sufficiency, relevance
General acceptance, reliability, validity
Reliability, relevance, legal sufficiency
Adjudicative competency
Criminal responsibility
Sex offender evaluation at sentencing
Amenability for rehabilitation
Dusky v. U.S.
Godinez v. Moran
Cooper v. Oklahoma
Jackson v. Indiana
Preponderance of the evidence
Clear and convincing evidence
Beyond a reasonable doubt
Without all reasonable doubt
10%
15-20%
25-30%
40-50%
Cannot be forced to take psychoactive medication intended to restore them to competency
Can be forced to take medication only if they are charged with a felony
Are entitled to a careful review of the trial-related risks and side effects of the medication before medication is ordered
Have a right to go to trial in a non-medicated state
Cases involving the insanity defense have become much more common
Both the federal government and many states have made it more difficult for defendants claiming insanity
Juries have been more sympathetic to defendants claiming insanity
About twelve states have abolished the insanity defense
Lessens the individual’s responsibility for an act
Renders an act even more heinous than previously thought
Suggests that an individual is dangerous to society
Absolves the individual of guilt
That the sex offender was seriously mentally ill
That the offender was unable to control his behavior
That the offender had some inability to control his behavior
That the offender showed no remorse for his crimes
Juvenile courts
Family courts
Probate courts
Municipal courts
Even over the objection of their parents
If they are perceived to be in danger
In the best interest of the children
All of the above
Juveniles had a right to be represented by lawyers in delinquency hearings
The doctrine of parens patriae should be abolished
Judges had to hold hearings before transferring juveniles to criminal court
Juveniles charged with status offenses could not be institutionalized
Juveniles often waive their right to have a lawyer present during custodial interrogation.
Juveniles have a Constitutional right to have their parents/guardians present, but not lawyers, during custodial interrogation.
Under the U.S. Constitution, police are not allowed to question juveniles without their parents or guardians present.
Under the U.S. Constitution, police are not allowed to question juveniles without a lawyer present.
Parents are the best protectors of their children’s legal rights
Many juveniles—particularly those 14 and younger—do not understand their constitutional rights
Juveniles today are aware of their rights and typically refuse to waive them
There are few age differences among juveniles in their ability to understand constitutional rights
Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.