Question 1
Insanity is the state when one's mind is not functioning normally. In my opinion, the best way to cope with the criminally insane is to rehabilitate them. It provides a loophole to understand them and the course for their actions. In response to my classmate's post, I think it is not right to conclude that one is insane simply because they did a wildly criminal act. Sometimes, people are driven by motive, and committing a crime is the only way to achieve a goal. Unless a person is tested and found insane by medical examiners, they should be treated as a criminal who had a motive (Kring & Johnson, 2018). In some cases, the people who commit crimes have psychological issues, but as long as they are proven medically, it is not enough to claim that they influenced the criminal.
Question 2
It is wrong to hide any abuse, no matter who the oppressor is (Kring & Johnson, 2018). Abuse from parents is likely to have the most effects since it is performed by a person who is supposed to be protecting the child. It should, therefore, be treated more seriously compared to the other types of abuse. The opinion is similar to my classmate's findings. Hiding any case of m is illegal and a violation of human rights. One should be free to avoid any form of mistreatment, especially when it comes to people who are close to the oppressed. It is the only way that can be used to prevent this type of abuse. Using the law of confidentiality, in this case, is protecting a fugitive who should be away from the community.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Question 3
An eye witness testimony should be well analyzed before a decision is reached. The jury should first check the evidence that places the eye witness in the spot at the time of the crime. Some of the factors that can be considered are the time that the crime was performed and the accuracy that the eye witness explains the event. The idea above (expressed by my classmates) is similar to my opinion. Any digression from the proven statistics should be analyzed with extreme caution since they are the ones that make the testimony valid (Kring & Johnson, 2018). In my opinion, the level of sanity is also a contributing factor. The idea is different from my classmates since it disqualifies the fact that an insane person may have the exact information, but the testimony is branded invalid.
Reference
Kring, A. M., & Johnson, S. L. (2018). Abnormal psychology: The science and treatment of psychological disorders. John Wiley & Sons.
