Reference no: EM133225166

My strategy as follows: In order to find out how insanity pertains to your specific case, you should schedule a consultation with a lawyer. By taking this step, you can ensure that the expert's testimony is only focused on subjects that pertain to the concept of insanity as outlined by law. After reviewing the evidence and testimony presented at the trial, we examined the testimony. For the expert's testimony to be consistent with the evidence presented in the problem, it is essential to complete the stage as early as possible. The next step would be to provide a report or testimony outlining the defendant's mental condition and behavior and how they may or may not have been affected by mental illness. The next step in the process could be viewed as this action. A crucial part of this process is ensuring the expert's evidence is focused on the issues relevant to the case rather than trying to answer the general question of whether the defendant was insane when the behavior was perpetrated. As a final step, the report or evidence must be concise and clear, without referring to the central issue of whether or not the defendant was insane at the time. We must use this method to ensure the jury's verdict will not be manipulated through the expert's testimony. This strategy is guided by moral and ethical principles such as respecting the law, following laws precisely as they are written, and not interpreting statutes in a way that is contrary to the law. To give an honest account of what happened, it is important to provide facts that can be verified and to avoid opinions unsupported by evidence. Refraining from commenting on fundamental legal questions, including whether a defendant was insane on the day of an incident, falls within the requirement to refrain from speaking on matters outside of one's expertise.

How does your strategy follow more modern opinions on ethics? How does your strategy reflect that ethics in psychology is not stagnant?