Superfreaks/ACRA: The Ten Jobs of Edward Bailey
milos_parker at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 10 06:25:09 PST 2008
On Jan 10, 1:35 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip... at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 1:21 pm, Tom Russell <milos_par... at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 11:11 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip... at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Forensic psychologists are useful in court cases to establish motive
> > > (why the suspect did it), intent (if he actually wanted to do it) and
> > > state of mind (if he knew what he was doing and that it was wrong) so
> > > they'd be useful on shows where you actually see cases go to trial. :)
> > Though it should be noted that, at least in the American justice
> > system and contrary to popular belief, there is no requirement that a
> > prosecutor show motive or intent, even in a murder trial. The burden
> > of proof only refers to matters of fact, which the rest of the various
> > jobs you've cited come into play. You're right, however, that they
> > can be useful in supporting the actual evidence.
> Except that intent makes the difference between manslaughter, second
> degree murder and first degree murder.
You know, you're right about that; I misspoke. I was thinking of the
so-called and irrelevant holy trinity of "motive, means, and
opportunity" often cited on television programs.
Though it should also be noted that intent can be demonstrated simply
through medical evidence in many cases as well, rather than what
"psychological" evidence. For example, shooting someone in the head
generally shows intent to kill them.
More information about the racc