Bachelor of Arts in Psychology: Intersection of Psychology and Legal System 1 Flashcards

Which landmark California Supreme Court case established that mental health professionals have a duty to warn identifiable third parties of a patient's serious threats of violence?

Answer: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976)

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) established the 'duty to warn,' holding that therapists must take reasonable steps to protect identifiable potential victims when a patient makes credible threats of violence, creating a significant intersection between therapeutic confidentiality and legal obligation.

What legal standard, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States (1960), is used to determine whether a defendant is competent to stand trial?

Answer: The defendant must have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and be able to assist counsel

Dusky v. United States set the two-part competency standard: the defendant must have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against them, and must be able to consult with their attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. This is distinct from the insanity defense, which addresses mental state at the time of the offense.

A psychologist testifying in court about the reliability of eyewitness identification would most likely draw on research demonstrating which of the following?

Answer: Memory is a reconstructive process susceptible to post-event contamination

Decades of research by Elizabeth Loftus and others has established that human memory is reconstructive rather than reproductive, meaning memories can be altered by post-event information, leading questions, and suggestion. This finding directly challenges the weight courts traditionally gave to confident eyewitness testimony.

In civil commitment proceedings, what is the legal standard of proof the state must meet to involuntarily hospitalize an individual with a mental illness?

Answer: Clear and convincing evidence

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Addington v. Texas (1979) that civil commitment requires proof by 'clear and convincing evidence,' a standard higher than preponderance of the evidence (used in most civil cases) but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt (used in criminal cases), reflecting the significant liberty interests at stake.

Which of the following best describes the primary distinction between the M'Naghten standard and the Model Penal Code (MPC) standard for the insanity defense?

Answer: M'Naghten focuses solely on cognitive impairment (knowing right from wrong), while the MPC also includes volitional impairment (inability to conform conduct to the law)

The M'Naghten rule (1843) tests only whether the defendant knew the nature of the act or knew it was wrong—a purely cognitive test. The MPC substantial capacity test (1962) broadens this by also excusing defendants who, as a result of mental disease, lacked substantial capacity to conform their conduct to the law, adding a volitional component.

What is the term for the legal doctrine, recognized in many jurisdictions, that allows a criminal defendant to argue they should not be held fully responsible because a mental condition—though not rising to the level of legal insanity—prevented them from forming the specific intent required for the charged offense?

Answer: Mens rea defense

The mens rea defense (also called diminished capacity in some jurisdictions) allows defendants to introduce evidence of a mental condition to negate the specific intent element of a crime. Unlike the insanity defense, it does not fully excuse the defendant but may result in conviction of a lesser offense that requires only general intent.