Question

In August 2012, K.I., a patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, was reportedly experiencing auditory hallucinations that were commanding him to kill himself. He was emergently admitted to Walden Behavioral Care, a psychiatric treatment facility in Massachusetts. K.I. was subsequently committed to the facility for a three-day evaluation period, during which he was examined and treated by psychiatrist David Brendel, who filed a petition for K.I.'s continued commitment pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, § 7,8 (2012), which states that a superintendent of a facility may petition for commitment and retention of any patient at said facility if the superintendent has determined that failure to hospitalize would create a likelihood of serious harm as a result of mental illness.

K.I. stated that he was never informed that his communications with his treating psychiatrist may be admissible in legal proceedings. He filed a motion to exclude Dr. Brendel's testimony, maintaining that his statements were protected by clinician–patient privilege. Two exceptions to this privilege outlined in the statute were raised in this case. The first exception, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 20B(a)(2012), states that privilege shall not apply if a clinician, in the course of his diagnosis or treatment of the patient, determines that the patient is in need of hospitalization for mental illness or that there is a threat of an imminent, dangerous act of the patient against himself or another person. The second exception, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 20B(b)(2012), states that privilege shall not apply if a judge finds that a patient, after having been informed that the communications would not be privileged, has made statements to the clinician during the course of a court-ordered examination that were relevant to the patient's mental illness.

K.I. asserted that the only exception that may be applicable to his case was the latter exception regarding court-ordered examinations. He argued that, because he had not been warned about the nonconfidential nature of his conversations with Dr. Brendel, the doctor's testimony should be excluded. The judge of the district court denied the motions, determining that the privilege was overcome by the first exception regarding imminent harm.

During the commitment hearing, Dr. Brendel testified that K.I. had made statements that he was hearing voices telling him to kill himself with an overdose of oxycodone. K.I. also indicated that he had access to oxycodone and that he intended to kill himself in this manner after discharge from the hospital. Dr. Brendel therefore testified that K.I. posed an imminent and serious risk of harming himself because of his mental illness if discharged from the hospital. The district court judge ordered K.I. to be committed to Walden Behavioral Care for six months. After two appeals, the original judgment by the district court was upheld.

Questions:

What forensic laws/rules are involved in this case?

What ethical principles are involved in this case? Are there any ethical principles violated and is it justified?

Answer 1

What forensic laws/rules are involved in this case?

This is the approach of a few scholars. While the connotation of the 'laws of proof' has been considered by the courts, they have not endeavored a thorough definition.

After endeavors to characterize law of confirmation lets characterize scientific proof and the method in which it tends to be connected with law of proof.

Those principles which specifically or by implication:

-Control what proof might be gotten;

-Control the way in which prove is introduced and gotten;

-Control how prove is to be taken care of and considered once it is gotten and what ends, assuming any, are to be drawn from specific classes of confirmation;

-Indicate the level of fulfillment that the council of truth must achieve in deciding if a reality in issue is built up and the results if such a level of fulfillment isn't come to.

What ethical principles are involved in this case? Are there any ethical principles violated and is it justified?

Scientific confirmation is additionally used to interface violations that are believed to be identified with each other. For instance, DNA confirmation can connect one guilty party to a few distinct violations or wrongdoing scenes (or excuse the charge d).Linking violations help law implementation specialists to limit the scope of conceivable suspects and to build up examples of for wrongdoings, which are valuable in distinguishing and arraigning suspects. Measurable researchers likewise deal with growing new methods and techniques for the gathering and investigation of confirmation. In this way, new innovation can be utilized and refined not exclusively to keep scientific researcher on the front line of science, yet to retain up the most astounding models of value and precision.

Measurable examination is normally completed by specialists working separately or in groups. Propelled methods regularly require labs where the investigative conditions can be deliberately controlled and observed. Private research centers and government organizations bolster little and extensive legal labs. Examination of measurable proof is utilized in the inspection and impeachment of common and criminal procedures. Frequently, it can set up the blame or blamelessness of conceivable suspects. Criminological proof is additionally used to interface violations that are believed to be identified with each other. For instance, DNA proof can connect one guilty party to a few unique wrongdoings or wrongdoing scenes (or excuse the blamed). Connecting violations causes law implementation specialists to limit the scope of conceivable suspects and to build up examples of for wrongdoings, which are helpful in recognizing and arraigning suspects.

Legal researchers moreover chip gone at growing new methods and methodology for the accumulation and investigation of confirmation. In this way, new innovation can be utilized and refined not exclusively to keep legal researcher on the front line of science, however to retain up the most elevated guidelines of value and precision. The inside and out investigation of measurable confirmation conveys us to the principle course of our theme. The diverse kinds of techniques that can be utilized in legal science and their adequacy in the lawful framework. In this manner for better understanding we take in to per see an ordinarily connected technique for measurable confirmation: