assignment-
Due Date: by end-of-day May 13, 2023.
Required minimum word count: 350 words (total).
Hello everyone,
As the course winds down, the purpose of this assignment is to synthesize numerous topics that we’ve covered into a single assignment. The case study at hand (Gilberto Valle) permits such synthesis. First, watch both videos on Gilberto Valle.
Your assignment should use in-text parenthetical citations from the videos (be certain to include time stamps in your citations).
There are multiple forensic issues involved with the Valle case; many of which we’ve covered (i.e., mental defect, personality issues and AsPD, risk and danger, competency and sanity, urges, compulsions and obsessions, there are both civil arena (FFDE) and criminal arena (dangerousness) issues, there was expert witness testimony at trial, questions of risk, sexual offending, etc.). Your job in this assignment will be to pick either one or multiple forensic constructs to consider in regard to the Valle case, and to speak to them.
Also, consider this quote from Schlesinger:
Schlesinger cites MacCulloch (1983) as follows: “…after studying sadistic fantasy and its relationship to offending, MacCulloch et al. (1983) were unable to differentiate those who act on their fantasies from a larger number who do not… not all individuals who entertain sadistic fantasies act out these fantasies… the number of individuals who actually go on to act out the fantasies depicted in their drawings or writings is relatively small.”
The Valle case is a crime of thought; he was arrested for having thoughts, and for discussing those thoughts with others. Ultimately, he never acted on his thoughts. We know, via MacCulloch, that every person who has a thought (no matter how repulsive that thought may be) does not act on that thought.
However – we also from Schlesinger; sadistic fantasy with compulsion to act (compulsion is a very specific clinical concept) and the need to control and dominate others are risk factors of potential concern for sexual offending behavior.
So – do we arrest people for their thoughts? Do we take people’s jobs away from them for their thoughts? What degree of risk does a thought represent?
Consider all of this as you answer the following:
ASSIGNMENT:
1. Explain the facts of the Valle case. The Who, When, Where, Why, What and How of the case. Explain it from beginning to end. Who he is. How he came to the attention of the criminal justice system. What the legal charges were. What the clinical concerns were. How did the trial proceed? Any expert testimony that occurred at or during trial (either MSO, CST or otherwise). What was the final disposition of the case (final – meaning after all appeals were exhausted, the final disposition). What happened to his job? Where he is now? Etc.
2. The purpose of a Synthesis Assignment is for you to demonstrate how you can apply various aspects of the course material from throughout the entire semester in regard to a single case study. Identify one, or as many as you choose, of the forensic constructs we have covered this semester which are relevant to this case (i.e., risk, danger, sanity, sexual offenses, compulsions, mental defect, etc), and do the following:
a. identify the forensic construct
b. explain how it is relevant to the case study.
c. speak to it as a clinical aspect of the case (discuss it). Yes, this is purposefully ambiguous because I want you to demonstrate how you think, and connect the clinical issue to the case.
Discussion-
After completing Assignment Fourteen, respond to the following:
1. Present to the board ONE of the forensic constructs you wrote about in your assignment (i.e., risk, danger, antisociality, personality, psychopathy, urges, sex offenses, etc). Explain to the board how the clinical construct you wrote about is relevant to the case study. Explain the relevance – in detail – of the construct you chose to the case.
Cite from the Valle videos using in-text time-stamps.
2. Present to the board your stance regarding the idea that Valle was charged based on thoughts he had; not actions. Defend, either way, (perhaps based on MacCulloch versus Schlesinger’s points) whether or not Valle’s acquittal is proper. Should he have been found guilty? If so, of what? Defend your stance. Should he have been found not guilty? Defend your stance.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1719750.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/04/cannibal-cop-cleared-in-court-again/?utm_term=.e55bdccd9797
https://crimewatchdaily.com/2017/05/02/gilberto-valle-discusses-cannibal-cop-case-with-crime-watch-daily/
Leave a Reply