Choose one of the following dilemmas and outline the argument for each of the opposing positions. Support your argument with reference(s) to articles from current peer-reviewed journals. References to laws and legal journals are also acceptable, if properly cited. You may cite the text, being certain to indicate when you have created a secondary citation.
Choose one:
- Kansas v. Hendricks
- Therapist testimony on behalf of clients – is the therapist an expert? Why or why not?
- Regulation of public smoking
- Mandatory sentencing versus judicial discretion.
Your post should convey both sides of the argument clearly and dispassionately. Try to write it in such a way that we, your readers, cannot guess which side you favor.
Issue post is due by Day 4 (Thursday) and at least one substantive response post is due by Day 6 (Saturday).
Weekly discussions follow a 4 phase cycle in which you 1) write about the assigned topic; 2) comment on what other students have written about that topic; 3) read the comments others have made on your posting; and 4) respond stating what you have gained from their insights/commentary. Respect the weekly DEADLINES.
RESOURCES/REFERENCES
- Greene, E., & Heilbrun, K. (2019). Wrightsman’s psychology and the legal system (9th ed.). Cengage.
- Chapter 1, “Psychology and the Law: Choices and Role”
- Chapter 2, “The Legal System: Issues, Structure, and Prayers”
- Greenberg, S. A., Shuman, D. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic rolesLinks to an external site.. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(1), 50–57