The Case Of Frost V Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police

This problem question is about claiming for damages due to psychiatric harm. It involves questions regarding primary victims, secondary victims, and special duties problems.

In the book, Crazy, by Pete Earley, provides a detailed overview of the mental health system in the United States, as it presents a first hand narrative of Earley’s family journey through the system. The author’s major premise and arguments, in the book, is to highlight the history of mental health, navigation through the judicial system with mental illness, the bureaucracy and policies of hospitals, society views on human rights and client safety, and the impact on the individual, family, and community. The content suggests that human service workers and public health workers should extend their professional lens to advocate for change in the mental health system in the United States.

Individuals with a mental illness enter a mental health court as it reduces the number of clients with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system, reduces stigma and stereotypical judgement in court, and reduces the number of clients with mental illnesses in prisons and jails. Although the judge does sentence the client, the client does still retain rights: The right to refuse treatments, the right to proper care and documentation, the right to be informed of all available medical treatments, and most importantly, the right to be treated with dignity as a human being. The court demonstrated that the client’s rights were addressed by offering the client the opportunity to voice his concerns, and by acknowledging his views on his condition. Even though the client did not think he needed help, the nurse and case manager were concerned about his hallucination, eating patterns, and lack of stability. They did not believe that an outpatient setting would work for this client as he was not stable, did not have clear insight, and retained a lack of resources. Barrier to care, for the mental health in general, include: lack of resource, knowledge deficits, stigma, financial barriers, and lack of mental health care professionals. Overall, this experience offered me to opportunity to perceive how a Mental Health Court functions and differs from the traditional court room, in relation to client goals,

3.2.2 The compromising of the mentally ill perpetrators Health to themselves and the general community

Evaluation and treatment of the mentally ill population has developed from confinement of the mad during colonial times, into the biomedical balancing of neurological impairment seen in these modern times. There were eras of mental health reform, medicalization, and deinstitutionalization sandwiched in between (Nies & McEwen, 2011). Regardless of the stage of understanding and development, communities have not been completely successful in dealing with and treating persons who are mentally unwell. Fortunately, treatment has become more compassionate; social and professional attitudes have morphed into more humanistic and

The use of mental health courts has been growing in the U.S., which has led to the discussion about how the mental health courts further promote medicalization of deviance; this is true. As outlined by Tammy Seltzer (2005), mental health courts have only been successful due to failures in the

Plaintiffs allege that defendants had prior knowledge that their daughter was a target for murder by a psychiatric patient and failed to warn the victim or anyone capable of stopping act. Defendants had notified campus police of patient’s intent, but after detaining him briefly, chose to release him because he “appeared rational.” Plaintiffs allege liability based on defendants’ failure to warn of impending danger, and failure to confine the patient. The Superior Court of California sustained the defendants’ demurrers to plaintiffs’ complaints. Appeal followed.

The stigma of mental illness creates a barrier for those who need treatment. Over the years, cases dealing with mentally ill persons involved with the criminal justice system have been prevalent. The cycle of courtrooms, prisons, and jails dealing with these individuals proved to be costly and an ineffective use of these resources (Docgurley, 2011). As a result, mental health courts have been established. This is essentially a therapeutic place where the focus is less on the crime and punishment and more on helping the client, which is usually in lieu of a jail or prison sentence. Particularly in this setting, it is important to understand the process of court proceedings, how client rights are protected, the importance of client safety and welfare, the gaps in services, and the course of involuntary treatment.

Although the idea of the “insanity defense” is state mandated and not federally acknowledged, it has drastically shifted overall throughout the course of time. The primary debate has now shifted from the sole focus on “insanity defense” to the idea of the death penalty and how it should be addressed in cases of serious mental illness or disabilities. Each state has specific laws surrounding all aspects of mental illness and how that should relate to the severity of the charges. “Currently in the United States, forensic mental-health professionals (psychiatrists, social workers, and psychologists) conduct the determination of whether the defendant fits the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of insanity at the time of the crime” (Richie et al, 2014). On the other hand, forensic psychologists who administer these assessments associated with determining legal proceeding must also place emphasis on adhering to the Code of Ethics. This could mean the psychologist needs to place emphasis on several areas when determining the adequate outcome. Legally, they have policies, questions, and parameters that the psychologist must adhere to but there is also the possibility of professional biases and errors.

This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues.

The appellant’s second submission concerned the way the judge in the first instance referenced sudden and temporary loss of self-control to the jury in the direction. The appellant submitted that this direction was incorrect. He also proposed that the learned Judge’s direction regarding the appellant’s characteristics in an attempt to use the model set by Lord Diplock in DPP v Camplin. The counsel for the appellant criticized the learned judges direction on two grounds: Firstly, that the Judge did not mention that the appellant was suffering from a condition known as the battered woman’s syndrome which so affected her personality that it put her in a state of learnt helplessness. Secondly, that the list of characteristics should have been left open so that the jury may pick up on the fact that she suffered from a

Roy Blunt, American politician, once said, “People with mental health problems are almost never dangerous. In fact, they are more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators. At the same time, mental illness has been the common denominator in one act of mass violence after another.” There is a misconception that mental disorders such as dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia are the same. Today’s society often see all mental disorders as one, however, they are very much different. If one was to say someone with multiple personalities is the same as someone who has hallucinations and/or has delusions, they are incorrect, which is why in specific cases such as schizophrenia, the legal term “not guilty due to mental disorder” should be valid.

Secondary victimisation is based on the states response and also the legal processes that the victim endures. The burdens that the victim had experienced from the primary victimisation is

Law of torts basically deals with the civil wrongs that have occurred in the society. These civil wrongs can be of various types like battery, negligence, nuisance etc. Interestingly unlike crimes, for a person to be liable for tort law intention may or may not be taken into account depending on the particular fact scenario. One of the most discussed principle in tort law is the “Eggshell skull theory” and through this paper I shall discuss in detail this rule and try to provide a framework in order to reach an acceptable justification, explanations and statutory provisions regarding the same. Eggshell Skull rule is neatly summarized by the statement “you take your victim as you find them.” This phrase essentially implies that if the defendant causes some injury to the plaintiff, who is suffering from some pre-existing condition which leads to the injury becoming more severe than it would have been if the victim didn’t suffer from the condition. The defendant in such a scenario must take the victim as he finds him, and be liable for all the damages incurred. What this means is that the defendant has an obligation to accept the plaintiff (victim) just as he is, including any medical conditions that are not clearly visible. On the other hand, the defendant has no obligation to provide a higher duty of care when it involves an eggshell plaintiff; the duty of care is the same, even when the plaintiff suffers from a pre-existing mental or physical condition

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,