Forensic Psychology, Week 6

Forensic Psychology, Week 6

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Forensic Psychology, Week 6

Part I

The case of Sean was a case of child abduction in which his mother without informing his father took him with her and then flew to Brazil. From there she never came back and died during childbirth. Sean’s biological father since then worked hard to bring him back because it was now his right to have the custody of his son. Once the mother is dead then there was no point that Sean would stay with his stepfather and his family because the only connection between the two was Sean's mother who was now no more so ethically and also for the emotional reason it was important to give the custody of Sean to his biological father. This particular case was considered as child abduction by the US government, so it was morally not right to hand over Sean to a person with whom he didn't have any relationship, although at that time his stepfather also wanted to get his custody but in the coming years if he would marry and had his own kids then he would never be able to give the same care and love to Sean, therefore the custody of Sean should be with his own father rather than his stepfather.

As a well-being healthcare expert, it is important to depend on the assistance of the workforce to make sure that the training runs smoothly. In order to make a secure environment for the representatives and also to deal with the risks of work injuries and ailments, one might consider obtaining workforce compensation claims. Just like the general liabilities covers the business for outside cases, the worker compensation claim secures the business from paying out of pocket for any wound, claims or any medical expenses related with the sick representatives. In case if a representative under an aggregate bargaining assertion which displays a standard additional than great confidence to critic similar activity, for instance, worthwhile motivation, then such case is barred if any worthy motivation is explained. Although it is a lesser standard than great confidence despite everything it implies the harmed worker must explain the disciplinary activity of the business is invalid earlier then she can obtain scope for mental damage.

Part II

The examples of pre-trial publicity are quite numerous for example, by reading an article published in a newspaper depicting a wrong conviction may incline the judges to be less likely to convict a perpetrator as compared to the judges who read such articles that are not related to the trial. Pre-trial publicity in some cases contaminate the trail when criminal cases grab the attention of the media, trial courts can limit the publicity by imposing a restriction on the media. Some case example of generic prejudice involves the case of Casey Anthony and O.J, in which both the defendants were considered culprits, before even knowing all the facts involving the case just because the nature of their cases were serious ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"Re4sCR0I","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Pretrial publicity\\uc0\\u8217{}s limited effect on the right to a fair trial,\\uc0\\u8221{} 2013)","plainCitation":"(“Pretrial publicity’s limited effect on the right to a fair trial,” 2013)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":1482,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/Z4WP7EUK"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/Z4WP7EUK"],"itemData":{"id":1482,"type":"post-weblog","title":"Pretrial publicity’s limited effect on the right to a fair trial","container-title":"The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press","abstract":"AP Photo by Steven Senne\nDefense attorneys for Robel Phillipos, who is charged with lying to authortities investigating the Boston Marathon bombings face journalists in front of federal court in Bo…","URL":"https://www.rcfp.org/journals/pretrial-publicitys-limited/","language":"en-US","issued":{"date-parts":[["2013",7,21]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",4,12]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“Pretrial publicity’s limited effect on the right to a fair trial,” 2013). It is very important to address these two issues in order to serve justice properly and one way of doing it is by investigating all the facts related to the case and not allowing other personal opinions in the case. The jurors should refrain to read or discuss something about the ongoing cases so that they give their hearing based on facts rather than opinions and false news.

After a struggle of almost a century in order to have the rights on juries, women are still considered as subservient, dependent and also grudging. Although there is no significant difference in terms of judgment and persuasiveness males offer more suggestions, opinions and also information as compared to the female counterparts. Inspite of the similarities between the two in terms of verdicts and also interaction style, men are thought to be more free, independent, confident and act more like a leader than females ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"f4bcR0Bj","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Nemeth, Endicott, & Wachtler, 1976, p. 50)","plainCitation":"(Nemeth, Endicott, & Wachtler, 1976, p. 50)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":1481,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/L7Q3ARC4"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/L7Q3ARC4"],"itemData":{"id":1481,"type":"article-journal","title":"From the '50s to the '70s: Women in Jury Deliberations","container-title":"Sociometry","page":"293-304","volume":"39","issue":"4","source":"JSTOR","archive":"JSTOR","abstract":"[After a century of struggle to gain the right to serve on juries, females are still viewed, both in the literature and in lawyers' folklore, as being submisive, emotional, dependent and envious. The research on sex differences in jury deliberations is both complex and dated. Two studies are reported in which the differences between the sexes in deliberation are analyzed with respect to verdict, amount and nature of participation, persuasiveness and perceptions. Findings indicate no significant differences between the sexes in terms of verdict or persuasiveness. Study I reports males offering more suggestions, oppinions and information than females whereas Study II shows no differences in the amount and nature of participation. In spite of the similarities between the sexes on verdict, interaction style and persuasiveness, males were perceived to be more independent, rational, strong, confident, influential and as more of a leader than were females.]","DOI":"10.2307/3033495","ISSN":"0038-0431","shortTitle":"From the '50s to the '70s","author":[{"family":"Nemeth","given":"Charlan"},{"family":"Endicott","given":"Jeffrey"},{"family":"Wachtler","given":"Joel"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1976"]]}},"locator":"50"}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Nemeth, Endicott, & Wachtler, 1976, p. 50).

References

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Nemeth, C., Endicott, J., & Wachtler, J. (1976). From the ’50s to the ’70s: Women in Jury Deliberations. Sociometry, 39(4), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033495

Pretrial publicity’s limited effect on the right to a fair trial. (2013, July 21). Retrieved April 12, 2019, from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press website: https://www.rcfp.org/journals/pretrial-publicitys-limited/