Analysis of the Marital Rape Case - Essay Example

?I. Summary of the Case Regina vs. CP is a case of marital rape. Whatever defences the accused attempted, the trial court adjudged him to have committed rape upon his wife. It is an interesting study in forensic psychology because psychology and the knowledge gained from it appears to have made things quite worse for the accused. The accused was said to have committed two counts of rape upon his wife. Once while they were ostensibly separated and again when they were reconciled. The first count of rape was not reported because the accused had apologized for the act. The second count of rape was the cause for the first being reported. The accused confessed that he did force himself upon his wife on both counts. However, he tried to portray himself as a victim of sorts. The judge was unconvinced and handed down a rather heavy sentence on account of aggravating factors that did not help the defendant’s case. When he was a teenager, first of all, he had been convicted of having sexual relations with a minor. He was also indicted for sexually assaulting his sister-in-law. This behaviour created a pattern that made the judge opine the accused was a recidivist. On appeal, his sentence was lowered on account of the fact that he was sentenced improperly by the judge. This technical aspect showed that the judge was convinced that his previous conduct, including his assault of his sister in law, was aggravating even if that case was yet to be resolved at the time of the trial. It is clear that the judge saw that the defendant was aware of his actions and that he should be punished for them. After all, the defendant acknowledged his wrongful conduct, he confessed to it and even apologized to the victim for what he had done. The higher court found that the judge had misapplied the sentencing rules against the defendant and that his past misconduct was taken too harshly against him. Of interest to the field of Forensic Psychology is the claim of the defendant that he is a victim. The records of the case do not divulge any information how he portrayed himself as a victim. Since this is a trial about his improper sexual conduct with respect to his wife, it is possible that he thinks his wife was unfairly depriving him of sex. His past actions suggest a pattern of improper sexual conduct as well. A psychological profile of the defendant would in fact aggravate his position because it will show that he is quite possibly unable to control his sexual urges. Unless he pleads an insanity defence, Forensic Psychology is not helpful to him. On the other hand, he can use forensic psychology to prove that he was not actually in control of his actions. He might be able to plead a case that the wrongfulness of his sexual misconduct is caused by some psychological malady. That is, he is not in control of his actions. II. Forensic Psychology and the Courts Psychology as a science can be very helpful during a trial. Psychologists can be expert witnesses. Even if they do not have personal knowledge of the crime or the events leading to a crime, they can use their scientific knowledge to deliver an expert opinion to help resolve a case. An important aspect of forensic psychology, in fact, is the ability of the psychologist to testify in court. He can present psychological findings in a language that can be easily understood by the court and will be very useful in helping the court make a correct judgment in the case (Nietzel, 1986). Psychological theories can be used to help indict or acquit an accused At this juncture it is important to understand that a forensic psychologist is considered an expert witness. He does not have to have personal knowledge of the crime. His testimony will not be considered hearsay. He is entitled to give his expert opinion. It is this privilege that makes him invaluable in a case. On the other hand, when a forensic psychologist delivers testimony that is unfavourable, it is usually very difficult to discredit him and render his testimony useless. In recent years, lawyers have become increasingly skilled at discrediting a forensic psychologist (Jay,1981). No matter how discredited, however, the testimony of a forensic psychologist is given great weight in court. Aside from helping resolve a trial, a forensic psychologist can actually render an opinion such as that an accused is incompetent to stand trial. A forensic psychologist is critical in a finding for insanity with the result that an accused cannot be tried. III. Criminology Frameworks and Psychological Theories of Crime There are competing theories in both criminology and forensic psychology. Reflecting the general discipline of psychology, forensic psychology theories encompass bioecological, sociological and psychiatric explanations for crime and are therefore more diverse, less amenable to reliable diagnoses of root causes and prevention. The Classical Criminology school of thought impinges on the instant case in two ways. First, the framework argues that the offender “CP” acted of his own free will and therefore deserves punishment. Rational choice theory then posits that the husband aimed to derive pleasure from normal marital relations while ignoring the aggravating factors that his wife could not possibly have given consent both because the couple was allegedly estranged and because she was asleep when the first offence occurred (Akers, 2010). The deterrence principle that posits certain, severe and reasonably immediate punishment is a minor consideration in this case for two reasons. First, the Courts of Appeal denigrated breach of trust as an aggravating factor. Secondly, the judges found unrelated the rape offence committed long before, when the defendant was a teenager. The Court gave little credence to the pre sentence report embodying the claim of the appellant that he was himself a victim and deserved some consideration for already beginning to acknowledge that he had wronged his wife. Could forensic psychology theories have been brought to bear more emphatically to reduce the sentence even more or acquit the appellant altogether? This then is the supportive role of the forensic psychologist: examine the appellant by way of administering an established paper-and-pencil test like the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, a projective test such as the Rorschach Inkblot Test, or a clinical interview and subsequently supply expert testimony that ‘CP’ is legally insane by reason of psychotic schizophrenia, atavism, low threshold of aggression-arousal, or possibly deviant for habitually acting out latent hostility in aggressive behaviour (Akers & Sellers, 2004;). Beyond clinical findings, the crux of such a defence is the repeated pattern of rape and domestic violence CP committed against family members. Two other modes of involvement for forensic psychologists in the case Regina vs. CP are: a) to refute, on behalf of the Crown, the defence of mental illness; and, b) provide counselling in a community context as an alternative to incarceration. Following precisely the rationale of addressing the emotional roots of CP’s acts of violence against women, Hannawa, Spitzberg, Wiering and Teranishi (2006) formulated the Relational Entitlement and Proprietariness Scale (REPS) that turned out to have high validity for measuring the twin constructs of relational proprietariness and entitlement as the theoretical antecedents of partner violence, particularly when a relationship is under threat of dissolution, as in the instant case. IV. Competent, Insane or Malingering? Criminal law is based on the principle that a person ought to be brought to account for his unlawful acts. Under the classical theory of criminal law. this would mean that he must be punished for his crime. Following the positivist school, that principle means that the accused is mentally ill and ought to be rehabilitated. There is also a theory in criminal law that suggests that a person should only be punished for a crime if he was conscious that what he was doing is wrong and if he was doing it of his own free will. Competency or rather incompetency involves the theory that the accused is so mentally disabled that he is no longer in control of his actions and therefore unfit to go to trial. A person can be judged criminally insane and therefore totally lacking in criminal responsibility. He can be adjudged as abnormal but possess enough of his mental faculties to be aware that his actions were wrong. Another possibility is that the accused is pretending to be mentally ill but is actually fine. This is called malingering. A forensic psychologist can be appointed by the court to asses a defendant’s competency to stand trial. He will be asked to perform an evaluation of the sanity of the defendant at the time of the offence (Grisso, 1988). As earlier mentioned, sanity is intrinsically linked to criminal liability and if a defendant is found to be insane, he may not be fit to stand trial. This is important because if the psychologist finds the defendant insane then the trial will stop altogether. Given the possibility of acquittal, or at least a finding of innocence due to insanity, the use of malingering and deception is a common tactic to avoid culpability. The defendant might be faking a mental disorder. Perhaps he might even attempt to exaggerate a mental malady to the point that he is symptomatic. The forensic psychologist must be aware that the accused may very well be trying to avoid penalty for his crime. If found to be insane a person may be committed to a facility for treatment but considering that he is not convicted of a crime, then it is probably a better fate. Thus a person might try to pass himself off as insane. It is worth noting that if a person is found insane by the forensic psychologist and found sane later on, he may find himself guilty of obstruction of justice. In fact, fabricating mental illness in a competency-to-stand-trial assessment can be used as an aggravating circumstance. V. Non-rational Escalation of Commitment as a Motive for Crime Staw (1976) coined the term “escalation of commitment”, otherwise known as the sunk cost fallacy. This describes a phenomenon where a person persists in misdirected effort or increases his investment in a failed enterprise despite having information that he had miscalculated and should have stopped long ago. This can also be called “in for a penny, in for a pound”. A non-rational escalation of commitment can be a motive for a crime. In the case given, it is possible that the accused had a non-rational escalation of commitment and deluded himself into thinking that he still enjoyed a happy marriage when in fact such was not the case. Non-rational escalation of commitment can also be used to describe the behaviour of a serial killer or a serial rapist. Such a flaw might even apply to other forms of deviant behaviour. In these cases, the person gains some thrill and enjoyment from his actions and he continues to do it searching for that thrill. No amount of recognition that what he is doing is wrong can get him to resolve to stop his behaviour. He has to recognize that his commitment to this wrongful activity is the reason he is suffering pain. Change blindness (Angelone, Levin & Simons, 2003) can also be used to describe how the accused became what he is now. He was so focused on his belief that intercourse was an essential fact of married life that he was willing to abuse the confidence of his wife. He cannot possibly have been unaware that his wife was no longer amenable to normal marital relations. Else, why did he wait until she was asleep? Nevertheless, the accused persisted in his attempts at marital rape. His refusal to see the changes in the conjugal relationship led to a second act. Change blindness can also be used to explain his seemingly irrational, slippery-slope pattern of unethical behaviour dating back to his teenage years. The slippery slope as describe by Cain et al. (2005) is a theory that suggests that an individual is more likely to engage in unethical behaviour that occurs in small increments rather than engaging in major acts of misconduct. In his case, he got away with having intercourse with a minor with a rather light punishment. He does not consider his behaviour deviant and thinks he can get away with it again. So he continues with his unethical actions. In the end, he is haled to court for his patent offenses. VI. Psychological Patterns for Solving Crimes A forensic psychologist can help solve crimes using other theories in psychology. For example, all behaviours, especially if deviant, are characterized by a pattern. A psychologist brought in to analyse a case can show these patterns and how they escalate from merely abnormal patterns into deviant behaviour and thence criminal acts. Serial killers and serial rapists also tend to follow a modus operandi in a pattern which a trained forensic psychologist can detect. In the absence of physical evidence, a psychological profile given by a forensic psychologist can be all that law enforcement has to go with for solving crimes. Forensic profiling can go a long way in solving crimes because it can help identify possible suspects so that they can be picked out from the crowd and investigated with more scrutiny to ferret out their guilt. VII. Conclusion In the case at hand, a forensic psychologist would have been helpful in resolving the issue of martial rape. The defendant was accused of committing marital rape against his spouse. The case itself is an interesting study in irony because although they were supposedly estranged they were nevertheless living together. The court found him guilty and sentenced him severely. His past actions of sexual misconduct and assault of his sister in law persuaded the judge to render a severe penalty, albeit his act of admitting to his crime became a mitigating factor. The case would have been an interesting study if a forensic psychologist had been involved and he discussed how the defendant actually came to his sorry state. He might have been able to use modern psychiatric theories to help understand how the accused became what he was and even quite possibly recommend treatment. A forensic psychologist is valuable in the interview/investigation and trial phases because of his ability to render expert opinions on the context and compulsions unique to the crime. Expert opinion is an exception to the hearsay rule. He can still deliver his opinion about the case and about the circumstances surrounding the case even if he was not an eyewitness. Perhaps the most important contribution the forensic psychologist can make is that he is typically hard to impeach and for as long as the opposing counsel is unable to discredit him, his testimony will carry great weight during the trial. References Akers, L. R. (2010). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation and applications. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company. Akers, R.L. & Sellers, C. S. (2004). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and applications (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company. Angelone, B.L., Levin, D.T., and Simons, D.J. (2003). The relationship between change detection and recognition of centrally attended objects in motion pictures. Perception. Bazerman, M.H. & Chugh, D. (2005). Bounded awareness: Focusing failures in negotiation. In Thompson, L. (ed.), Frontiers of social psychology: Negotiations. College Park, MD: Psychology Press. Cain, D.M., Loewenstein, G. & Moore, D.A.(2005). The dirt on coming clean: Perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. Journal of Legal Studies. Grisso, T. (1988). Competency to stand trial evaluations: A manual for practice. Sarasota FL: Professional Resource Exchange. ISBN 0-943158-51-6. Hannawa, A. F., Spitzberg, B. H., Wiering, L., & Teranishi, C. (2006). “If i can't have you, no one can”: Development of a relational entitlement and proprietariness scale (REPS). Violence and Victims, 21 (5) 539-60. Lombroso, C. (1876/2006). Criminal man. Translated and with a new introduction by Mary Gibson and Nicole Hahn Rafter. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Nietzel, M. (1986). Psychological consultation in the courtroom. New York: Pergamon Press. ISBN 0-08-030955-0. Staw B. (1976). Knee-deep in the Big Muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. In Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance. Read More