Forensic Examination

Forensic Examination

Introduction

The objective of this study is to assess the problems that were experienced by Li during the court trial. Li had a very different personality from the beginning, and, his interests were not similar with other classmates during the university life. He had a methodical mind and scored a very enjoyable GPA to pass his high school and university. Li did not have many friends and most of them considered him a single person. The reason was the ideas that he had in the mind regarding various subjects. Later on in his life, when he started his professional life, he had several confrontations with his colleagues. Li thought he had the ability to take the company to new heights and tried to prove this point several times. These ideas led to the confrontation, and, a case was registered against him in the court regarding his cognitive behavior. During the court trial, he tried to convince the jury that he did not have any psychological problem and had a different mental process. This is the reason why he was different from other people that led to confrontation with them. Though, a forensic psychological examination of Li took place that included several factors, which had immense, value in the entire process. Therefore, all issues related to Forensic Psychological examination in terms of vignette offense identification will be discussed in detail.

Overview of Forensic Examination and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Post traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) remains a controversy in the field of psychology. Allegedly, there are psychologists who do not take into consideration the seventeen different criteria as they are articulated in the DSM-IV-TR, when they make this diagnosis. Of interest is Criterion A, criterion that briefly outlines what constitutes a traumatic event. Criterion A has two parts that need to be met in order for PTSD to be diagnosed. First, the individual must experience, witnesses, or be confronted with an event or events that involve actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others. Second, the individual must experience intense fear, helplessness, or horror as a reaction to the event. A number of issues have arisen with this traditional definition and, because of conflicting beliefs concerning Criterion A, there appears to be a split amongst the psychological community. Those who claim that minor events (i.e., exposure to offensive remarks, chronic disease, serious work or relationship problems) could qualify as traumatic events, and, others who believe that this liberal expansion of the criterion places the credibility of PTSD in danger. The lack of consensus over the DSM-IV-TR criteria, particularly Criterion A, appears to result in different standards of practice when it comes to diagnosis (Ackerman, 1998, 90).

The DSM-IV-TR, despite controversy that diagnosis may not be appropriate for forensic settings, has become a forensic mantra in court. PTSD diagnosis, in particular, is often used in a circular manner by attorneys to prove that a traumatic event occurred and that the claimant, usually a personal ...