Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Landmark Cases in Forensic Psychology: Gilbert v. Homar
Similar to Landmark Cases in Forensic Psychology: Gilbert v. Homar (20)
More from aryan532920
More from aryan532920 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Landmark Cases in Forensic Psychology: Gilbert v. Homar
- 1. Global Sociological Issues Group project Soc 101 Spring 2017 Elvin Score breakdown for this project CONSUMPTION & CONSUMERISM PROJECT * Extra Credit not needed Final product 60% Presentation feature 15% Project Overview: This project will focus on a Global Sociological Issue chosen (Consumption & Consumerism). You will answer the questions listed below and compile information to create a multimedia presentation to present to the class on week 7. The multimedia presentation will be formatted in APA 6th edition, with a Title page, in text citations, image citations and a reference page. The reference page will include 15 sources in proper APA 6th edition format that have been integrated into the presentation. (2 scholarly, 2 newspapers and 2 web pages). ** As an extra credit option, you may for up to 10 extra points, interview a person who has firsthand experience with the issue you are studying or a professional working to address the issue you have chosen. Interview notes will be submitted with the final product on week 7. Areas to be addressed in the final product: 1. Brief overview of the topic 2. Why should we care about this issue, how does it affect us in the USA? 3. Brief literature review. This should be a summary of the current information in this field. 4. Identify and explain the relevant sociological theories and explain how this theory provides insight into your topic. 5. Apply and explain 3-5 Sociological concepts that are related
- 2. to/impact your issue. 6. What groups are currently working to address the issue you have chosen and what are they doing. 7. Extra Credit See above Final Product score: this score will be created by the evaluation of the content of the presentation, evidence of critical thought, the sources and the creativity put in to the multi-media presentation. Presentation score: this score will be created by the manner and skill with which the presentation is delivered in class. Report by Dari Donner FILE T IME SUBMIT T ED 19- APR- 2017 09:32PM SUBMISSION ID 7 4 24 98695 WORD COUNT 1282 CHARACT ER COUNT 657 6 CASE_ST UDY.DOC (37 .5K)
- 3. %26 SIMILARIT Y INDEX %23 INT ERNET SOURCES %0 PUBLICAT IONS %24 ST UDENT PAPERS 1 %6 2 %5 3 %4 4 %4 5 %2 6 %2 7 %2 8 %1 9 Report ORIGINALITY REPORT PRIMARY SOURCES en.wikipedia.org
- 4. Int ernet Source Submitted to American Intercontinental University Online St udent Paper Submitted to Cherry Creek High School St udent Paper Submitted to San Jacinto College District St udent Paper Submitted to Saint Leo University St udent Paper Submitted to Southern Illinois University St udent Paper Submitted to Columbia College of Missouri St udent Paper prezi.com Int ernet Source digitalcommons.hsc.unt.edu %1 10 %1 EXCLUDE QUOT ES OFF EXCLUDE BIBLIOGRAPHY
- 5. ON EXCLUDE MAT CHES OFF Int ernet Source Submitted to EDMC St udent Paper Reportby Dari DonnerReportORIGINALITY REPORTPRIMARY SOURCES Assignment 2: Individual Research Task Landmark Case Presentation In this module, present your research findings on the landmark cases related to competency to stand trial (CST), criminal responsibility, the right to receive mental health treatment, the right to refuse psychiatric treatment, coercion to mental health treatment, and civil commitment and treatment of sex offenders. Tasks: Create a case report for each selected case, including the following headings: · Title and Citation: Provide the title of the case and in which court the case is involved. · Type of Action: Describe the type of the case. · Facts of the Case: Describe the key facts in the case with roles and responsibilities of forensic psychology professionals. · Contentions of the Parties: Explain the relevant points in the contentions of the parties.
- 6. · Issue: Describe the issue from the viewpoint of the psycholegal question at hand. · Decision: Explain the decision in the case with implications, present and future, for the practice of forensic psychology. · Reasoning: Explain the reasoning provided by the trial judges or justices to arrive at the decision and dissenting opinions, if any. · Rule of Law: Describe the rule of law with regard to the practice of forensic psychology. Click here for a sample case report, which you can also use as a template to write your individual case report. Write the case reports in not more than a 6-page Microsoft Word document. All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules for attributing sources. You may refer to the following links for additional information: · Landmark Cases of the US Supreme Court · Supreme Court of the U.S. · FindLaw · Google · US Supreme Court Center Sample Case: A Sample Case Report Title and Citation: Gilbert v. Homar, 117 S. Ct. 1807 (1997).
- 7. Type of Action: Civil Suit for Violation of Due Process Facts of the Case: Homar was employed as a police officer at East Stroudsburg University, a state institution. He was arrested on August 26 at a friend’s house during a drug raid and charged with possession of marijuana, possession with intent to deliver, and criminal conspiracy to violate the controlled substance law, a felony charge. He was suspended without pay the next day by the university. Although the charges were dropped by the state police on September 1, the university wished to pursue its own investigation. The university officials met with Homar on September 18 to hear his side of the story. On September 23, he was demoted to groundskeeper and was told he would receive back pay at the groundskeeper rate, though he eventually received back pay at the police officer rate. The union president met with the university president, Gilbert, on September 24. The demotion was based, in part, on a confession by Homar given to the state police on the night of his arrest. Homar contended that he was denied due process since there was no hearing prior to his suspension without pay. Contentions of the Parties: Homar contended that he was denied due process since he did not have a hearing prior to being suspended without pay. He used prior cases in which the Supreme Court had ruled that a tenured state employee must have a pretermination hearing. Thus, a tenured state employee cannot be fired without due process. However, as presented by Justice Scalia, Homar had simply been suspended and not terminated. The issue of denying him his livelihood was only temporary, during his suspension, and should not have posed a hardship. Issue: Can the state suspend a tenured employee without pay without hearing the employee’s side of the case? Decision: The court ruled three issues that are to be considered.
- 8. First is the respondent’s (Homar’s) interest and how it is affected by the official’s decision. In this case, Homar was denied pay during his suspension. The second consideration is the risk of an erroneous decision by the officials due to the procedures used to reach the decision and any safeguards in place to reverse an erroneous decision. Homar was granted a hearing with the university officials approximately three weeks after the suspension took effect. The third consideration by the court is the government’s interest. Reasoning: The court ruled that there was probable cause for university officials to believe Homar had violated the law due to his alleged confession in the police report. Thus, they were justified in suspending Homar. The court ruled that the suspension was not final and that the deprivation of income was also only temporary, pending a postsuspension hearing. Finally, the state has an interest in immediately suspending public officials who occupy highly visible roles when they are charged with felony crimes. Rule of Law: Due process must be viewed as procedures that take into account the circumstances of the situation for both parties involved. Here, the state was able to delay the due process by immediately suspending Homar. However, the suspension was viewed as temporary, pending a prompt hearing (Homar’s due process), and the state’s interest in maintaining public trust in the university police force justified an immediate suspension. The court also ruled suspension with pay would essentially be a “paid leave at taxpayer expense” and is not constitutionally protected.