Superfreaks/ACRA: The Ten Jobs of Edward Bailey
martinphipps2 at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 10 07:51:17 PST 2008
On Jan 10, 10:25 pm, Tom Russell <milos_par... at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
The irony of course is that after I posted what I wrote above I
thought of Dick Cheney and his lawyer-friend hunting partner. :)
More information about the racc