1- Is the adversarial system the best means of determining any of the mental states that we have considered so far in this course: incapacity; dangerousness; competence to stand trial; insanity? That is, is a "battle of the experts"— in which lawyers for two sides put experts on the stand to testify—a reasonable means of determining whether someone is able to handle her own affairs, dangerous, able to understand the nature of charges and assist in her defense or able to understand the nature and consequences of her acts? Would it be better to rely upon court-appointed experts? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each method?

2- Answer two responses like what do you think do you agree or disagree why or why not give an ideas or examples in your own words

Response 1: Havviland

Hi group A! While thinking about which is better, court based attorney or an independent attorney there are some questions and opinions that come to my mind. First I would think that someone who is court based attorney and that works/ is hired by the court would be more inclined to favor in the courts rule. Where as an independent attorney the client knows that they are working for you and that they are having your best interest at heart and while working the case because they are hired and being paid by you. An advantage of having a court based attorney is that they do not technically work for the client, so if the client is guilty then who is to say that they will not try to prove that the client is guilty. This would probably be a fairish result because the attorney would know what the client has told them and maybe they're guilty and told them that? This also though could not be a fair choice because the court based attorney could not have the clients best interest at heart, after all they are being paid by the court system. An independent attorney could not also be a fair choice to the victim and the court because they are being paid and do work for the client and if the client is guilty, then the attorney is trying everything they can to get their client off. I'm not sure if this makes them a good or bad attorney.

Response 2: Diana Macy

As in any criminal court case, having a court appointed expert versus and independent expert has both pros and cons. Although the ultimate goal of having either appointed expert is the same, there are differences in which some may feel that a case would better benefit or suffer depending on the expert assigned.

Each appointed expert whether they are court appointed or independently appointed have the same ethical guidelines and laws of practice that they need to follow. Ultimately the expert should be working to coincide with the client to arrive at the best settlement of the case in the best interest of the client. It is the ultimate responsibility of the legal expert to inform the client of the information that is gathered against them and for them in the case and advice them as to making a decision or recommendation for them to accept or decline the offer or plea.

Although the expert is working in the best interest of the client, to save on cost and time, the expert may try to persuade the client into taking a plea or settling on a case rather than fighting it through the end. As legal experts and legal counsel hold a significant amount of weight to an individual who is charged with a crime and not familiar with or aware of the legal system, they can be easily persuaded into taking a plea, which the legal counsel is going to display to the client is the best option for them, however there may have been a better alternative down the road, if the legal counsel took the time to fight the case. Not only does time and money contribute to this, the majority of legal counsel and experts are experiencing high numbers in cases and are being overworked. Ultimately,

There is a vast mix of pros and cons of each option. When going with a court appointed expert, the client/ state is saving on costs; however there is a preconceived notion that court appointed expert is going to side with the court, which in the long run can extend costs with the appeals process. Most individuals would most likely choose an independent expert as there is no identifiable history or relationship with that expert and the Judge or Judicial system. Choosing an independent expert would prevent any bias from being assumed, as with a court appointed expert, it would be assumed that they are working “in favor” of the court rather than for the best interest of the client.