Victim Psychology: Legal Theory And Application

1313 Words 5 Pages
Legal Theory and Application Explain the background, current presentation, and behavior of the client utilizing theories of offender and/or victim psychology and personality/psychological theories to support your position. Do not simply restate the client’s presentation from the vignette. Instead, provide a theoretical-based discussion of the client’s behaviors as presented in the vignette.
An account of Mr. Mendez current presentation and behavior could be explained by Berkowitz frustration-aggression theory. Berkowitz explains that reactive aggression is defined as a retaliatory response to real thread or provocation (Renouf et al., 2010, p. 1109) Berkowitz proposed that adverse events such as frustration, provocation, loud noises
…show more content…
One is those that will be life course persistent offenders and secondly is those that are adolescent limited offenders (Donker, Smeenk, Laan, & Verhulst, 2003, p. 594). Mr. Mendez exhibits traits found with those explained by Moffit 's, such as immaturity, poor attention, and poor school performance. Mr. Mendez wishes to move from his current placement but does not have the finances to move, It was noted from school record that he did not put much effort in passing high school. He states that he has a hard time focusing and completing task in school. Mr. Mendez was able to successfully complete the eleventh grade but did not return to finish his last year of high school. Moffit 's theory explain that life time persistent offenders will show antisocial behavior without stability over their life time. According to Donker, Smeenk, Laan, & Verhulst (2003), overt behavior, particularly physical aggression is thought of as a hallmark of a life-course persistent delinquency according to Moffit 's theory They will exhibit antisocial behavior very young including biting and hitting as early as age 4 and followed by crimes such as shoplifting, selling drugs, theft robbery, rape and child abuse. Mr. Mendez currently does not show or have a history of fitting the lifetime persistent …show more content…
It states that to establish an insanity defense it must be proven that that the time of the act, the defendant was impaired by the disease that he was unaware of the nature of the act the he had committing (Lubaszka & Shon, 2013, p. 67). In more resent years the Durham rule has been a standard to follow.The next legal area is Criminal responsibility in which the case chosen was Durham v. United States. This case is also referred to as the Durham rule. In this 1954 case the court ruled that the individual cannot be held criminally responsible for an unlawful act because of a mental disease (Garofolo). An individual cannot be held responsible if they are not able to truly comprehend how their actions have that negative impact. This ruling goes in hand with the insanity defense in seeing if someone action is a product of mental illness. . Insanity states that a person can not be held responsible for a crime that the individual did not have "guilty mind" that is required for a criminal act to be committed (Bartol & Bartol, 2012, p.

Related Documents