Forensic Analysis of Mr. M: Psychopathy, Thought Disorder, Delusion - Essay Sample

Introduction

Whether or not a defendant is sane determines their competency to stand trial and criminal culpability or responsibility for their criminal conduct. This paper presents a forensic analysis of Mr. M's diagnoses, competence to stand trial, and criminal culpability.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Mr. M's Diagnoses

The diagnoses that I believe Mr. M might have based on the facts of the case are psychopathy, thought disorder, grandiose delusional disorders, paranoid schizophrenia, and dementia. The fact that Mr. M believes drinking blood would sharpen his teeth and make him demonic is evidence of psychopathy. Further, the evidence of thought disorder is his sometimes tangential, disorganized, or illogical behavior and thoughts. Moreover, the evidence of delusional disorder is Mr. M's wish that he was Asian because he could be and do anything including art. Also, paranoid schizophrenia is evidenced by the fact that Mr. M thinks "the government is hiding shit," such as poison in the food supply. Moreover, Mr. M's constant memory loss and inability to understand who is a defendant point to dementia or Alzheimer's disease.

Competency

I do not think Mr. M is competent to stand trial. The competency of a criminal defendant to stand trial refers to the defendant's ability to understand and appreciate the court proceedings, the nature, and gravity of the offense with which they have been charged, and the legal implications of the the charge (Rogers, Blackwood, Farnham, Pickup, & Watts, 2008). From the facts, it is clear that Mr. m does not have a factual and rational understanding of the proceedings. He does not know who a defendant is. He also does not appreciate the nature or gravity of his offense, meaning he does not understand the evidence. Hence, he is incompetent to stand trial. He has also been using drugs such as marijuana, hence affecting his mental fitness.

Criminal Responsibility

I do not think Mr. M should be found not guilty because of insanity. According to the Chicago Bar Association (2015), a person is not criminally responsible for their conduct if that conduct resulted from a mental defect or disease and hence they did not have the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct. It is therefore evident that Mr. M is suffering from different forms of mental disorders which prove that he did not understand right or wrong at the material time. In this case, Mr. M. was belaboring from mental illnesses, could not hence differentiate right from wrong.

Conclusion

In summary, my overall assessment of Mr. M is that he suffers from various diseases and defects of the mind to an extent that he does not comprehend whether he is a defendant in the first place. Hence, he lacks the competency to stand trial and should not be held responsible for his crimes but found not guilty because of insanity.

References

Chicago Bar Association. (2015, November 17). The insanity defense - You and the law [YouTube file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSUsg6qiv-M

Rogers, T.P., Blackwood, F., Farnham, F., Pickup, .J., & Watts, M.J. (2008). Fitness to plead andcompetence to stand trial: A systematic review of the constructs and their application. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 19(4), 576-596