Graduate level psychology help | Psychology homework help

Study case 1. And reply the following questions.

Case 1. Analysis of Psychological Incapacity and

Capital Punishment: A Question of Human Rights?

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

prosecution to evaluate the psychological competence of John Stone, a 50-year-old

man convicted of first-degree murder of a guard all through a monetary establishment theft. John had

claimed he was innocent all via the trial. Throughout the state by which the trial was

carried out, folks convicted of such an offense face the demise penalty. John’s

lawyer challenged the demise penalty risk for his shopper, claiming that the defendant

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

(2002) that the execution of those with psychological incapacity (beforehand commonly known as

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

sooner than on psychological incapacity cases, nevertheless that’s the main time he had been

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

states should implement the demise penalty.

The psychologist meets John in a private room inside the jail and administers a

battery of psychological and adaptive habits assessments with confirmed psychometric validity

for determining forensically associated psychological ability. Merely as he ends the formal

verify administration, John turns into distraught and appears to be experiencing

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

asking God for forgiveness for killing the guard and for murdering one different explicit individual,

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

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

Dr. Romaro was shocked to hearken to John “confess” not solely to the monetary establishment murder

however moreover to the murder of a “boy prepared for a bus.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Information of Psychological Points, fourth model

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

developmental incapacity”) requires that individuals present significantly

sub-average psychological functioning, impairments in adaptive functioning,

and onset sooner than 18 years of age. Equally, the state regular for psychological incapacity

encompasses a developmental historic previous of psychological impairment. Earlier to testing,

Appendix B——355

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

school information to search out out if John meets these requirements. No formal tutorial

or psychological Assessments had been included inside the provides he obtained. The

information indicated that John had a poor tutorial doc, was retained in fifth

grade, was suspended quite a lot of events for coming to highschool drunk, and had left

school when he was 15. State requirements moreover embrace an IQ score decrease than 70 and

poor adaptive experience.

That evening Dr. Romaro scores the verify battery. John’s IQ score is 71, his effectivity

on totally different cognitive assessments fell close to the psychological incapacity cutoff score

(some above, some below). His adaptive functioning score is an abnormal deviation

below frequent. Nonetheless, given the prisoner’s age, and never utilizing a further detailed set of

childhood information, it is troublesome to clearly conclude that he meets the DSM-IV-TR

or state approved requirements for psychological incapacity. Dr. Romaro had not been requested to

administer assessments for mood, schizophrenia, or totally different psychotic issues that

could impair psychological and adaptive effectivity.

Ethical Dilemma

Dr. Romaro is not optimistic what forensic opinion to supply regarding whether or not or not or not

John meets the approved requirements for psychological incapacity. With out proof of psychological

incapacity in his youth, a prognosis of psychological incapacity is not going to be attainable

and, thus, could not be used to help John’s demise penalty attraction. He is moreover

unsure whether or not or not he has an ethical obligation to include in his report John’s

“confession” or John’s assertion regarding the “boy prepared for a bus.”

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

1. Why is that this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Concepts help physique the character of the dilemma? 

2. How could Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence in direction of the demise penalty have an effect on his dedication to produce a forensic prognosis of psychological incapacity? How could John’s “confession” or his comment regarding the “boy prepared for the bus” have an effect on the selection? To what extent ought to those elements play a process in Dr. Romaro’s report?

three. How are APA Ethical Necessities 2.0f, three.06, 4.04, 4.05, 5.01, 9.01a and 9.06 associated to this case? Which totally different necessities could apply?

4. What steps should Dr. Romaro take to ethically implement his dedication and monitor its influence?

Study case 1. And reply the following questions.

Case 1. Analysis of Psychological Incapacity and

Capital Punishment: A Question of Human Rights?

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

prosecution to evaluate the psychological competence of John Stone, a 50-year-old

man convicted of first-degree murder of a guard all through a monetary establishment theft. John had

claimed he was innocent all via the trial. Throughout the state by which the trial was

carried out, folks convicted of such an offense face the demise penalty. John’s

lawyer challenged the demise penalty risk for his shopper, claiming that the defendant

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

(2002) that the execution of those with psychological incapacity (beforehand commonly known as

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

sooner than on psychological incapacity cases, nevertheless that’s the main time he had been

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

states should implement the demise penalty.

The psychologist meets John in a private room inside the jail and administers a

battery of psychological and adaptive habits assessments with confirmed psychometric validity

for determining forensically associated psychological ability. Merely as he ends the formal

verify administration, John turns into distraught and appears to be experiencing

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

asking God for forgiveness for killing the guard and for murdering one different explicit individual,

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

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

Dr. Romaro was shocked to hearken to John “confess” not solely to the monetary establishment murder

however moreover to the murder of a “boy prepared for a bus.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Information of Psychological Points, fourth model

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

developmental incapacity”) requires that individuals present significantly

sub-average psychological functioning, impairments in adaptive functioning,

and onset sooner than 18 years of age. Equally, the state regular for psychological incapacity

encompasses a developmental historic previous of psychological impairment. Earlier to testing,

Appendix B——355

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

school information to search out out if John meets these requirements. No formal tutorial

or psychological Assessments had been included inside the provides he obtained. The

information indicated that John had a poor tutorial doc, was retained in fifth

grade, was suspended quite a lot of events for coming to highschool drunk, and had left

school when he was 15. State requirements moreover embrace an IQ score decrease than 70 and

poor adaptive experience.

That evening Dr. Romaro scores the verify battery. John’s IQ score is 71, his effectivity

on totally different cognitive assessments fell close to the psychological incapacity cutoff score

(some above, some below). His adaptive functioning score is an abnormal deviation

below frequent. Nonetheless, given the prisoner’s age, and never utilizing a further detailed set of

childhood information, it is troublesome to clearly conclude that he meets the DSM-IV-TR

or state approved requirements for psychological incapacity. Dr. Romaro had not been requested to

administer assessments for mood, schizophrenia, or totally different psychotic issues that

could impair psychological and adaptive effectivity.

Ethical Dilemma

Dr. Romaro is not optimistic what forensic opinion to supply regarding whether or not or not or not

John meets the approved requirements for psychological incapacity. With out proof of psychological

incapacity in his youth, a prognosis of psychological incapacity is not going to be attainable

and, thus, could not be used to help John’s demise penalty attraction. He is moreover

unsure whether or not or not he has an ethical obligation to include in his report John’s

“confession” or John’s assertion regarding the “boy prepared for a bus.”

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

1. Why is that this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Concepts help physique the character of the dilemma? 

2. How could Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence in direction of the demise penalty have an effect on his dedication to produce a forensic prognosis of psychological incapacity? How could John’s “confession” or his comment regarding the “boy prepared for the bus” have an effect on the selection? To what extent ought to those elements play a process in Dr. Romaro’s report?

three. How are APA Ethical Necessities 2.0f, three.06, 4.04, 4.05, 5.01, 9.01a and 9.06 associated to this case? Which totally different necessities could apply?

4. What steps should Dr. Romaro take to ethically implement his dedication and monitor its influence?

Study case 1. And reply the following questions.

Case 1. Analysis of Psychological Incapacity and

Capital Punishment: A Question of Human Rights?

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

prosecution to evaluate the psychological competence of John Stone, a 50-year-old

man convicted of first-degree murder of a guard all through a monetary establishment theft. John had

claimed he was innocent all via the trial. Throughout the state by which the trial was

carried out, folks convicted of such an offense face the demise penalty. John’s

lawyer challenged the demise penalty risk for his shopper, claiming that the defendant

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

(2002) that the execution of those with psychological incapacity (beforehand commonly known as

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

sooner than on psychological incapacity cases, nevertheless that’s the main time he had been

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

states should implement the demise penalty.

The psychologist meets John in a private room inside the jail and administers a

battery of psychological and adaptive habits assessments with confirmed psychometric validity

for determining forensically associated psychological ability. Merely as he ends the formal

verify administration, John turns into distraught and appears to be experiencing

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

asking God for forgiveness for killing the guard and for murdering one different explicit individual,

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

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

Dr. Romaro was shocked to hearken to John “confess” not solely to the monetary establishment murder

however moreover to the murder of a “boy prepared for a bus.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Information of Psychological Points, fourth model

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

developmental incapacity”) requires that individuals present significantly

sub-average psychological functioning, impairments in adaptive functioning,

and onset sooner than 18 years of age. Equally, the state regular for psychological incapacity

encompasses a developmental historic previous of psychological impairment. Earlier to testing,

Appendix B——355

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

school information to search out out if John meets these requirements. No formal tutorial

or psychological Assessments had been included inside the provides he obtained. The

information indicated that John had a poor tutorial doc, was retained in fifth

grade, was suspended quite a lot of events for coming to highschool drunk, and had left

school when he was 15. State requirements moreover embrace an IQ score decrease than 70 and

poor adaptive experience.

That evening Dr. Romaro scores the verify battery. John’s IQ score is 71, his effectivity

on totally different cognitive assessments fell close to the psychological incapacity cutoff score

(some above, some below). His adaptive functioning score is an abnormal deviation

below frequent. Nonetheless, given the prisoner’s age, and never utilizing a further detailed set of

childhood information, it is troublesome to clearly conclude that he meets the DSM-IV-TR

or state approved requirements for psychological incapacity. Dr. Romaro had not been requested to

administer assessments for mood, schizophrenia, or totally different psychotic issues that

could impair psychological and adaptive effectivity.

Ethical Dilemma

Dr. Romaro is not optimistic what forensic opinion to supply regarding whether or not or not or not

John meets the approved requirements for psychological incapacity. With out proof of psychological

incapacity in his youth, a prognosis of psychological incapacity is not going to be attainable

and, thus, could not be used to help John’s demise penalty attraction. He is moreover

unsure whether or not or not he has an ethical obligation to include in his report John’s

“confession” or John’s assertion regarding the “boy prepared for a bus.”

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

1. Why is that this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Concepts help physique the character of the dilemma? 

2. How could Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence in direction of the demise penalty have an effect on his dedication to produce a forensic prognosis of psychological incapacity? How could John’s “confession” or his comment regarding the “boy prepared for the bus” have an effect on the selection? To what extent ought to those elements play a process in Dr. Romaro’s report?

three. How are APA Ethical Necessities 2.0f, three.06, 4.04, 4.05, 5.01, 9.01a and 9.06 associated to this case? Which totally different necessities could apply?

4. What steps should Dr. Romaro take to ethically implement his dedication and monitor its influence?

Study case 1. And reply the following questions.

Case 1. Analysis of Psychological Incapacity and

Capital Punishment: A Question of Human Rights?

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

prosecution to evaluate the psychological competence of John Stone, a 50-year-old

man convicted of first-degree murder of a guard all through a monetary establishment theft. John had

claimed he was innocent all via the trial. Throughout the state by which the trial was

carried out, folks convicted of such an offense face the demise penalty. John’s

lawyer challenged the demise penalty risk for his shopper, claiming that the defendant

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

(2002) that the execution of those with psychological incapacity (beforehand commonly known as

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

sooner than on psychological incapacity cases, nevertheless that’s the main time he had been

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

states should implement the demise penalty.

The psychologist meets John in a private room inside the jail and administers a

battery of psychological and adaptive habits assessments with confirmed psychometric validity

for determining forensically associated psychological ability. Merely as he ends the formal

verify administration, John turns into distraught and appears to be experiencing

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

asking God for forgiveness for killing the guard and for murdering one different explicit individual,

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

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

Dr. Romaro was shocked to hearken to John “confess” not solely to the monetary establishment murder

however moreover to the murder of a “boy prepared for a bus.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Information of Psychological Points, fourth model

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

developmental incapacity”) requires that individuals present significantly

sub-average psychological functioning, impairments in adaptive functioning,

and onset sooner than 18 years of age. Equally, the state regular for psychological incapacity

encompasses a developmental historic previous of psychological impairment. Earlier to testing,

Appendix B——355

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

school information to search out out if John meets these requirements. No formal tutorial

or psychological Assessments had been included inside the provides he obtained. The

information indicated that John had a poor tutorial doc, was retained in fifth

grade, was suspended quite a lot of events for coming to highschool drunk, and had left

school when he was 15. State requirements moreover embrace an IQ score decrease than 70 and

poor adaptive experience.

That evening Dr. Romaro scores the verify battery. John’s IQ score is 71, his effectivity

on totally different cognitive assessments fell close to the psychological incapacity cutoff score

(some above, some below). His adaptive functioning score is an abnormal deviation

below frequent. Nonetheless, given the prisoner’s age, and never utilizing a further detailed set of

childhood information, it is troublesome to clearly conclude that he meets the DSM-IV-TR

or state approved requirements for psychological incapacity. Dr. Romaro had not been requested to

administer assessments for mood, schizophrenia, or totally different psychotic issues that

could impair psychological and adaptive effectivity.

Ethical Dilemma

Dr. Romaro is not optimistic what forensic opinion to supply regarding whether or not or not or not

John meets the approved requirements for psychological incapacity. With out proof of psychological

incapacity in his youth, a prognosis of psychological incapacity is not going to be attainable

and, thus, could not be used to help John’s demise penalty attraction. He is moreover

unsure whether or not or not he has an ethical obligation to include in his report John’s

“confession” or John’s assertion regarding the “boy prepared for a bus.”

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

1. Why is that this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Concepts help physique the character of the dilemma? 

2. How could Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence in direction of the demise penalty have an effect on his dedication to produce a forensic prognosis of psychological incapacity? How could John’s “confession” or his comment regarding the “boy prepared for the bus” have an effect on the selection? To what extent ought to those elements play a process in Dr. Romaro’s report?

three. How are APA Ethical Necessities 2.0f, three.06, 4.04, 4.05, 5.01, 9.01a and 9.06 associated to this case? Which totally different necessities could apply?

4. What steps should Dr. Romaro take to ethically implement his dedication and monitor its influence?

Study case 1. And reply the following questions.

Case 1. Analysis of Psychological Incapacity and

Capital Punishment: A Question of Human Rights?

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

prosecution to evaluate the psychological competence of John Stone, a 50-year-old

man convicted of first-degree murder of a guard all through a monetary establishment theft. John had

claimed he was innocent all via the trial. Throughout the state by which the trial was

carried out, folks convicted of such an offense face the demise penalty. John’s

lawyer challenged the demise penalty risk for his shopper, claiming that the defendant

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

(2002) that the execution of those with psychological incapacity (beforehand commonly known as

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

sooner than on psychological incapacity cases, nevertheless that’s the main time he had been

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

states should implement the demise penalty.

The psychologist meets John in a private room inside the jail and administers a

battery of psychological and adaptive habits assessments with confirmed psychometric validity

for determining forensically associated psychological ability. Merely as he ends the formal

verify administration, John turns into distraught and appears to be experiencing

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

asking God for forgiveness for killing the guard and for murdering one different explicit individual,

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

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

Dr. Romaro was shocked to hearken to John “confess” not solely to the monetary establishment murder

however moreover to the murder of a “boy prepared for a bus.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Information of Psychological Points, fourth model

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

developmental incapacity”) requires that individuals present significantly

sub-average psychological functioning, impairments in adaptive functioning,

and onset sooner than 18 years of age. Equally, the state regular for psychological incapacity

encompasses a developmental historic previous of psychological impairment. Earlier to testing,

Appendix B——355

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

school information to search out out if John meets these requirements. No formal tutorial

or psychological Assessments had been included inside the provides he obtained. The

information indicated that John had a poor tutorial doc, was retained in fifth

grade, was suspended quite a lot of events for coming to highschool drunk, and had left

school when he was 15. State requirements moreover embrace an IQ score decrease than 70 and

poor adaptive experience.

That evening Dr. Romaro scores the verify battery. John’s IQ score is 71, his effectivity

on totally different cognitive assessments fell close to the psychological incapacity cutoff score

(some above, some below). His adaptive functioning score is an abnormal deviation

below frequent. Nonetheless, given the prisoner’s age, and never utilizing a further detailed set of

childhood information, it is troublesome to clearly conclude that he meets the DSM-IV-TR

or state approved requirements for psychological incapacity. Dr. Romaro had not been requested to

administer assessments for mood, schizophrenia, or totally different psychotic issues that

could impair psychological and adaptive effectivity.

Ethical Dilemma

Dr. Romaro is not optimistic what forensic opinion to supply regarding whether or not or not or not

John meets the approved requirements for psychological incapacity. With out proof of psychological

incapacity in his youth, a prognosis of psychological incapacity is not going to be attainable

and, thus, could not be used to help John’s demise penalty attraction. He is moreover

unsure whether or not or not he has an ethical obligation to include in his report John’s

“confession” or John’s assertion regarding the “boy prepared for a bus.”

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

1. Why is that this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Concepts help physique the character of the dilemma? 

2. How could Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence in direction of the demise penalty have an effect on his dedication to produce a forensic prognosis of psychological incapacity? How could John’s “confession” or his comment regarding the “boy prepared for the bus” have an effect on the selection? To what extent ought to those elements play a process in Dr. Romaro’s report?

three. How are APA Ethical Necessities 2.0f, three.06, 4.04, 4.05, 5.01, 9.01a and 9.06 associated to this case? Which totally different necessities could apply?

4. What steps should Dr. Romaro take to ethically implement his dedication and monitor its influence?