Graduate level psychology help | Online writing help writing psychology assignment homework

Learn case 1. And reply the next questions.

Case 1. Evaluation of Mental Incapacity and

Capital Punishment: A Query of Human Rights?

Dr. Eduardo Romaro, a clinically educated forensic psychologist, was retained by the

prosecution to judge the mental competence of John Stone, a 50-year-old

man convicted of first-degree homicide of a guard throughout a financial institution theft. John had

claimed he was harmless all through the trial. Within the state by which the trial was

performed, people convicted of such an offense face the demise penalty. John’s

lawyer challenged the demise penalty possibility for his consumer, claiming that the defendant

is intellectually disabled. The U.S. Supreme Court docket dominated in Atkins v. Virginia

(2002) that the execution of these with mental incapacity (previously generally known as

psychological retardation) is unconstitutional. Dr. Romaro had labored with the prosecution

earlier than on mental incapacity instances, however that is the primary time he had been

retained for a capital punishment case. He’s personally ambivalent about whether or not

states ought to implement the demise penalty.

The psychologist meets John in a personal room within the jail and administers a

battery of mental and adaptive habits assessments with confirmed psychometric validity

for figuring out forensically related mental skill. Simply as he ends the formal

check administration, John turns into distraught and seems to be experiencing

an anxiousness assault. In his misery the psychologist hears the prisoner repeatedly

asking God for forgiveness for killing the guard and for murdering one other particular person,

who he retains calling “the boy ready for the bus.” The psychologist shifts into an

emergency disaster intervention mode to assist calm the defendant and rings for help.

Dr. Romaro was shocked to listen to John “confess” not solely to the financial institution homicide

but additionally to the homicide of a “boy ready for a bus.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Guide of Psychological Issues, fourth version

(DSM-IV-TR) prognosis of mental incapacity (at present termed “psychological retardation

developmental incapacity”) requires that people show considerably

sub-average mental functioning, impairments in adaptive functioning,

and onset earlier than 18 years of age. Equally, the state normal for mental incapacity

features a developmental historical past of mental impairment. Previous to testing,

Appendix B——355

Dr. Romaro had requested the prosecutor for all accessible childhood psychological well being or

faculty data to find out if John meets these standards. No formal academic

or psychological evaluations had been included within the supplies he obtained. The

data indicated that John had a poor tutorial document, was retained in fifth

grade, was suspended a number of occasions for coming to high school drunk, and had left

faculty when he was 15. State standards additionally embrace an IQ rating lower than 70 and

poor adaptive expertise.

That night Dr. Romaro scores the check battery. John’s IQ rating is 71, his efficiency

on different cognitive assessments fell near the mental incapacity cutoff rating

(some above, some under). His adaptive functioning rating is an ordinary deviation

under common. Nonetheless, given the prisoner’s age, and not using a extra detailed set of

childhood data, it’s troublesome to obviously conclude that he meets the DSM-IV-TR

or state authorized standards for mental incapacity. Dr. Romaro had not been requested to

administer assessments for temper, schizophrenia, or different psychotic problems that

may impair mental and adaptive efficiency.

Moral Dilemma

Dr. Romaro isn’t positive what forensic opinion to offer concerning whether or not or not

John meets the authorized standards for mental incapacity. With out proof of mental

incapacity in his youth, a prognosis of mental incapacity will not be attainable

and, thus, couldn’t be used to help John’s demise penalty attraction. He’s additionally

uncertain whether or not he has an moral duty to incorporate in his report John’s

“confession” or John’s assertion in regards to the “boy ready for a bus.”

Reply to the next questions in 1,250 to 1,500 phrases.

1. Why is that this an moral dilemma? Which Ace homework tutors – APA Moral Ideas assist body the character of the dilemma? 

2. How may Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence towards the demise penalty affect his determination to supply a forensic prognosis of mental incapacity? How may John’s “confession” or his remark in regards to the “boy ready for the bus” affect the choice? To what extent ought to these components play a task in Dr. Romaro’s report?

three. How are Ace homework tutors – APA Moral Requirements 2.0f, three.06, four.04, four.05, 5.01, 9.01a and 9.06 related to this case? Which different requirements may apply?

four. What steps ought to Dr. Romaro take to ethically implement his determination and monitor its impact?

Learn case 1. And reply the next questions.

Case 1. Evaluation of Mental Incapacity and

Capital Punishment: A Query of Human Rights?

Dr. Eduardo Romaro, a clinically educated forensic psychologist, was retained by the

prosecution to judge the mental competence of John Stone, a 50-year-old

man convicted of first-degree homicide of a guard throughout a financial institution theft. John had

claimed he was harmless all through the trial. Within the state by which the trial was

performed, people convicted of such an offense face the demise penalty. John’s

lawyer challenged the demise penalty possibility for his consumer, claiming that the defendant

is intellectually disabled. The U.S. Supreme Court docket dominated in Atkins v. Virginia

(2002) that the execution of these with mental incapacity (previously generally known as

psychological retardation) is unconstitutional. Dr. Romaro had labored with the prosecution

earlier than on mental incapacity instances, however that is the primary time he had been

retained for a capital punishment case. He’s personally ambivalent about whether or not

states ought to implement the demise penalty.

The psychologist meets John in a personal room within the jail and administers a

battery of mental and adaptive habits assessments with confirmed psychometric validity

for figuring out forensically related mental skill. Simply as he ends the formal

check administration, John turns into distraught and seems to be experiencing

an anxiousness assault. In his misery the psychologist hears the prisoner repeatedly

asking God for forgiveness for killing the guard and for murdering one other particular person,

who he retains calling “the boy ready for the bus.” The psychologist shifts into an

emergency disaster intervention mode to assist calm the defendant and rings for help.

Dr. Romaro was shocked to listen to John “confess” not solely to the financial institution homicide

but additionally to the homicide of a “boy ready for a bus.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Guide of Psychological Issues, fourth version

(DSM-IV-TR) prognosis of mental incapacity (at present termed “psychological retardation

developmental incapacity”) requires that people show considerably

sub-average mental functioning, impairments in adaptive functioning,

and onset earlier than 18 years of age. Equally, the state normal for mental incapacity

features a developmental historical past of mental impairment. Previous to testing,

Appendix B——355

Dr. Romaro had requested the prosecutor for all accessible childhood psychological well being or

faculty data to find out if John meets these standards. No formal academic

or psychological evaluations had been included within the supplies he obtained. The

data indicated that John had a poor tutorial document, was retained in fifth

grade, was suspended a number of occasions for coming to high school drunk, and had left

faculty when he was 15. State standards additionally embrace an IQ rating lower than 70 and

poor adaptive expertise.

That night Dr. Romaro scores the check battery. John’s IQ rating is 71, his efficiency

on different cognitive assessments fell near the mental incapacity cutoff rating

(some above, some under). His adaptive functioning rating is an ordinary deviation

under common. Nonetheless, given the prisoner’s age, and not using a extra detailed set of

childhood data, it’s troublesome to obviously conclude that he meets the DSM-IV-TR

or state authorized standards for mental incapacity. Dr. Romaro had not been requested to

administer assessments for temper, schizophrenia, or different psychotic problems that

may impair mental and adaptive efficiency.

Moral Dilemma

Dr. Romaro isn’t positive what forensic opinion to offer concerning whether or not or not

John meets the authorized standards for mental incapacity. With out proof of mental

incapacity in his youth, a prognosis of mental incapacity will not be attainable

and, thus, couldn’t be used to help John’s demise penalty attraction. He’s additionally

uncertain whether or not he has an moral duty to incorporate in his report John’s

“confession” or John’s assertion in regards to the “boy ready for a bus.”

Reply to the next questions in 1,250 to 1,500 phrases.

1. Why is that this an moral dilemma? Which Ace homework tutors – APA Moral Ideas assist body the character of the dilemma? 

2. How may Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence towards the demise penalty affect his determination to supply a forensic prognosis of mental incapacity? How may John’s “confession” or his remark in regards to the “boy ready for the bus” affect the choice? To what extent ought to these components play a task in Dr. Romaro’s report?

three. How are Ace homework tutors – APA Moral Requirements 2.0f, three.06, four.04, four.05, 5.01, 9.01a and 9.06 related to this case? Which different requirements may apply?

four. What steps ought to Dr. Romaro take to ethically implement his determination and monitor its impact?

Learn case 1. And reply the next questions.

Case 1. Evaluation of Mental Incapacity and

Capital Punishment: A Query of Human Rights?

Dr. Eduardo Romaro, a clinically educated forensic psychologist, was retained by the

prosecution to judge the mental competence of John Stone, a 50-year-old

man convicted of first-degree homicide of a guard throughout a financial institution theft. John had

claimed he was harmless all through the trial. Within the state by which the trial was

performed, people convicted of such an offense face the demise penalty. John’s

lawyer challenged the demise penalty possibility for his consumer, claiming that the defendant

is intellectually disabled. The U.S. Supreme Court docket dominated in Atkins v. Virginia

(2002) that the execution of these with mental incapacity (previously generally known as

psychological retardation) is unconstitutional. Dr. Romaro had labored with the prosecution

earlier than on mental incapacity instances, however that is the primary time he had been

retained for a capital punishment case. He’s personally ambivalent about whether or not

states ought to implement the demise penalty.

The psychologist meets John in a personal room within the jail and administers a

battery of mental and adaptive habits assessments with confirmed psychometric validity

for figuring out forensically related mental skill. Simply as he ends the formal

check administration, John turns into distraught and seems to be experiencing

an anxiousness assault. In his misery the psychologist hears the prisoner repeatedly

asking God for forgiveness for killing the guard and for murdering one other particular person,

who he retains calling “the boy ready for the bus.” The psychologist shifts into an

emergency disaster intervention mode to assist calm the defendant and rings for help.

Dr. Romaro was shocked to listen to John “confess” not solely to the financial institution homicide

but additionally to the homicide of a “boy ready for a bus.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Guide of Psychological Issues, fourth version

(DSM-IV-TR) prognosis of mental incapacity (at present termed “psychological retardation

developmental incapacity”) requires that people show considerably

sub-average mental functioning, impairments in adaptive functioning,

and onset earlier than 18 years of age. Equally, the state normal for mental incapacity

features a developmental historical past of mental impairment. Previous to testing,

Appendix B——355

Dr. Romaro had requested the prosecutor for all accessible childhood psychological well being or

faculty data to find out if John meets these standards. No formal academic

or psychological evaluations had been included within the supplies he obtained. The

data indicated that John had a poor tutorial document, was retained in fifth

grade, was suspended a number of occasions for coming to high school drunk, and had left

faculty when he was 15. State standards additionally embrace an IQ rating lower than 70 and

poor adaptive expertise.

That night Dr. Romaro scores the check battery. John’s IQ rating is 71, his efficiency

on different cognitive assessments fell near the mental incapacity cutoff rating

(some above, some under). His adaptive functioning rating is an ordinary deviation

under common. Nonetheless, given the prisoner’s age, and not using a extra detailed set of

childhood data, it’s troublesome to obviously conclude that he meets the DSM-IV-TR

or state authorized standards for mental incapacity. Dr. Romaro had not been requested to

administer assessments for temper, schizophrenia, or different psychotic problems that

may impair mental and adaptive efficiency.

Moral Dilemma

Dr. Romaro isn’t positive what forensic opinion to offer concerning whether or not or not

John meets the authorized standards for mental incapacity. With out proof of mental

incapacity in his youth, a prognosis of mental incapacity will not be attainable

and, thus, couldn’t be used to help John’s demise penalty attraction. He’s additionally

uncertain whether or not he has an moral duty to incorporate in his report John’s

“confession” or John’s assertion in regards to the “boy ready for a bus.”

Reply to the next questions in 1,250 to 1,500 phrases.

1. Why is that this an moral dilemma? Which Ace homework tutors – APA Moral Ideas assist body the character of the dilemma? 

2. How may Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence towards the demise penalty affect his determination to supply a forensic prognosis of mental incapacity? How may John’s “confession” or his remark in regards to the “boy ready for the bus” affect the choice? To what extent ought to these components play a task in Dr. Romaro’s report?

three. How are Ace homework tutors – APA Moral Requirements 2.0f, three.06, four.04, four.05, 5.01, 9.01a and 9.06 related to this case? Which different requirements may apply?

four. What steps ought to Dr. Romaro take to ethically implement his determination and monitor its impact?

Learn case 1. And reply the next questions.

Case 1. Evaluation of Mental Incapacity and

Capital Punishment: A Query of Human Rights?

Dr. Eduardo Romaro, a clinically educated forensic psychologist, was retained by the

prosecution to judge the mental competence of John Stone, a 50-year-old

man convicted of first-degree homicide of a guard throughout a financial institution theft. John had

claimed he was harmless all through the trial. Within the state by which the trial was

performed, people convicted of such an offense face the demise penalty. John’s

lawyer challenged the demise penalty possibility for his consumer, claiming that the defendant

is intellectually disabled. The U.S. Supreme Court docket dominated in Atkins v. Virginia

(2002) that the execution of these with mental incapacity (previously generally known as

psychological retardation) is unconstitutional. Dr. Romaro had labored with the prosecution

earlier than on mental incapacity instances, however that is the primary time he had been

retained for a capital punishment case. He’s personally ambivalent about whether or not

states ought to implement the demise penalty.

The psychologist meets John in a personal room within the jail and administers a

battery of mental and adaptive habits assessments with confirmed psychometric validity

for figuring out forensically related mental skill. Simply as he ends the formal

check administration, John turns into distraught and seems to be experiencing

an anxiousness assault. In his misery the psychologist hears the prisoner repeatedly

asking God for forgiveness for killing the guard and for murdering one other particular person,

who he retains calling “the boy ready for the bus.” The psychologist shifts into an

emergency disaster intervention mode to assist calm the defendant and rings for help.

Dr. Romaro was shocked to listen to John “confess” not solely to the financial institution homicide

but additionally to the homicide of a “boy ready for a bus.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Guide of Psychological Issues, fourth version

(DSM-IV-TR) prognosis of mental incapacity (at present termed “psychological retardation

developmental incapacity”) requires that people show considerably

sub-average mental functioning, impairments in adaptive functioning,

and onset earlier than 18 years of age. Equally, the state normal for mental incapacity

features a developmental historical past of mental impairment. Previous to testing,

Appendix B——355

Dr. Romaro had requested the prosecutor for all accessible childhood psychological well being or

faculty data to find out if John meets these standards. No formal academic

or psychological evaluations had been included within the supplies he obtained. The

data indicated that John had a poor tutorial document, was retained in fifth

grade, was suspended a number of occasions for coming to high school drunk, and had left

faculty when he was 15. State standards additionally embrace an IQ rating lower than 70 and

poor adaptive expertise.

That night Dr. Romaro scores the check battery. John’s IQ rating is 71, his efficiency

on different cognitive assessments fell near the mental incapacity cutoff rating

(some above, some under). His adaptive functioning rating is an ordinary deviation

under common. Nonetheless, given the prisoner’s age, and not using a extra detailed set of

childhood data, it’s troublesome to obviously conclude that he meets the DSM-IV-TR

or state authorized standards for mental incapacity. Dr. Romaro had not been requested to

administer assessments for temper, schizophrenia, or different psychotic problems that

may impair mental and adaptive efficiency.

Moral Dilemma

Dr. Romaro isn’t positive what forensic opinion to offer concerning whether or not or not

John meets the authorized standards for mental incapacity. With out proof of mental

incapacity in his youth, a prognosis of mental incapacity will not be attainable

and, thus, couldn’t be used to help John’s demise penalty attraction. He’s additionally

uncertain whether or not he has an moral duty to incorporate in his report John’s

“confession” or John’s assertion in regards to the “boy ready for a bus.”

Reply to the next questions in 1,250 to 1,500 phrases.

1. Why is that this an moral dilemma? Which Ace homework tutors – APA Moral Ideas assist body the character of the dilemma? 

2. How may Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence towards the demise penalty affect his determination to supply a forensic prognosis of mental incapacity? How may John’s “confession” or his remark in regards to the “boy ready for the bus” affect the choice? To what extent ought to these components play a task in Dr. Romaro’s report?

three. How are Ace homework tutors – APA Moral Requirements 2.0f, three.06, four.04, four.05, 5.01, 9.01a and 9.06 related to this case? Which different requirements may apply?

four. What steps ought to Dr. Romaro take to ethically implement his determination and monitor its impact?

Learn case 1. And reply the next questions.

Case 1. Evaluation of Mental Incapacity and

Capital Punishment: A Query of Human Rights?

Dr. Eduardo Romaro, a clinically educated forensic psychologist, was retained by the

prosecution to judge the mental competence of John Stone, a 50-year-old

man convicted of first-degree homicide of a guard throughout a financial institution theft. John had

claimed he was harmless all through the trial. Within the state by which the trial was

performed, people convicted of such an offense face the demise penalty. John’s

lawyer challenged the demise penalty possibility for his consumer, claiming that the defendant

is intellectually disabled. The U.S. Supreme Court docket dominated in Atkins v. Virginia

(2002) that the execution of these with mental incapacity (previously generally known as

psychological retardation) is unconstitutional. Dr. Romaro had labored with the prosecution

earlier than on mental incapacity instances, however that is the primary time he had been

retained for a capital punishment case. He’s personally ambivalent about whether or not

states ought to implement the demise penalty.

The psychologist meets John in a personal room within the jail and administers a

battery of mental and adaptive habits assessments with confirmed psychometric validity

for figuring out forensically related mental skill. Simply as he ends the formal

check administration, John turns into distraught and seems to be experiencing

an anxiousness assault. In his misery the psychologist hears the prisoner repeatedly

asking God for forgiveness for killing the guard and for murdering one other particular person,

who he retains calling “the boy ready for the bus.” The psychologist shifts into an

emergency disaster intervention mode to assist calm the defendant and rings for help.

Dr. Romaro was shocked to listen to John “confess” not solely to the financial institution homicide

but additionally to the homicide of a “boy ready for a bus.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Guide of Psychological Issues, fourth version

(DSM-IV-TR) prognosis of mental incapacity (at present termed “psychological retardation

developmental incapacity”) requires that people show considerably

sub-average mental functioning, impairments in adaptive functioning,

and onset earlier than 18 years of age. Equally, the state normal for mental incapacity

features a developmental historical past of mental impairment. Previous to testing,

Appendix B——355

Dr. Romaro had requested the prosecutor for all accessible childhood psychological well being or

faculty data to find out if John meets these standards. No formal academic

or psychological evaluations had been included within the supplies he obtained. The

data indicated that John had a poor tutorial document, was retained in fifth

grade, was suspended a number of occasions for coming to high school drunk, and had left

faculty when he was 15. State standards additionally embrace an IQ rating lower than 70 and

poor adaptive expertise.

That night Dr. Romaro scores the check battery. John’s IQ rating is 71, his efficiency

on different cognitive assessments fell near the mental incapacity cutoff rating

(some above, some under). His adaptive functioning rating is an ordinary deviation

under common. Nonetheless, given the prisoner’s age, and not using a extra detailed set of

childhood data, it’s troublesome to obviously conclude that he meets the DSM-IV-TR

or state authorized standards for mental incapacity. Dr. Romaro had not been requested to

administer assessments for temper, schizophrenia, or different psychotic problems that

may impair mental and adaptive efficiency.

Moral Dilemma

Dr. Romaro isn’t positive what forensic opinion to offer concerning whether or not or not

John meets the authorized standards for mental incapacity. With out proof of mental

incapacity in his youth, a prognosis of mental incapacity will not be attainable

and, thus, couldn’t be used to help John’s demise penalty attraction. He’s additionally

uncertain whether or not he has an moral duty to incorporate in his report John’s

“confession” or John’s assertion in regards to the “boy ready for a bus.”

Reply to the next questions in 1,250 to 1,500 phrases.

1. Why is that this an moral dilemma? Which Ace homework tutors – APA Moral Ideas assist body the character of the dilemma? 

2. How may Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence towards the demise penalty affect his determination to supply a forensic prognosis of mental incapacity? How may John’s “confession” or his remark in regards to the “boy ready for the bus” affect the choice? To what extent ought to these components play a task in Dr. Romaro’s report?

three. How are Ace homework tutors – APA Moral Requirements 2.0f, three.06, four.04, four.05, 5.01, 9.01a and 9.06 related to this case? Which different requirements may apply?

four. What steps ought to Dr. Romaro take to ethically implement his determination and monitor its impact?