The Violent Risk Essay Paper

Note: This assignment description is also explained within the attachment as well as the rubric.

In 750-1,000 words, consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California to answer the following:

ORDER NOW FOR COMPREHENSIVE, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS

1. Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians.

2. Describe the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff.

3. Discuss if a clinician should be held civilly liable for violent behavior of an inmate the clinician assessed.

Provide three to five peer reviewed resources to support your explanations.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. The Violent Risk Essay Paper

Rubric_Print_Format20.xlsx

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code	Class Code	Assignment Title	Total Points
PSY-623	PSY-623-O500	Violence Risk Assessment Essay	80.0
Criteria	Percentage	Unsatisfactory (0.00%)	Less than Satisfactory (74.00%)	Satisfactory (79.00%)	Good (87.00%)	Excellent (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
Content	70.0%
Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians.	20.0%	Discussion of why the case is important to mental health clinicians is missing.	Discussion of why the case is important to mental health clinicians is vague and inconsistent.	Discussion of why the case is important to mental health clinicians is present and clear.	Discussion of why the case is important to mental health clinicians is clear and makes some connections to research.	Discussion of why the case is important to mental health clinicians is clear, concise, and makes connections to current research.
Describe the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff.	25.0%	Description of the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff is missing.	Description of the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff is vague and inconsistent.	Description of the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff is present and clear.	Description of the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff is clear and makes some connections to research.	Description of the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff is clear, concise, and makes connections to current research.
Discuss if a clinician should be civilly liable for violent behavior of an inmate that the clinician assessed.	25.0%	Discussion of if a clinician should be civilly liable for violent behavior of an inmate the clinician assessed is missing.	Discussion of if a clinician should be civilly liable for violent behavior of an inmate the clinician assessed is vague and inconsistent.	Discussion of if a clinician should be civilly liable for violent behavior of an inmate the clinician assessed is present and clear.	Discussion of if a clinician should be civilly liable for violent behavior of an inmate the clinician assessed is clear and makes some connections to research.	Discussion of if a clinician should be civilly liable for violent behavior of an inmate the clinician assessed is clear, concise, and makes connections to current research.
Organization and Effectiveness	20.0%
Thesis Development and Purpose	7.0%	Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.	Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.	Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and Construction	8.0%	Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.	Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.	Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.	Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.	Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	5.0%	Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Format	10.0%
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)	5.0%	Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.	Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.	Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.	Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.	All format elements are correct.
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)	5.0%	Sources are not documented.	Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.	Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
Total Weightage	100%

ViolenceRiskAssessmentEssay.docx

Violence Risk Assessment Essay

In 750-1,000 words, consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California to answer the following:

1. Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians.

2. Describe the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff.

3. Discuss if a clinician should be held civilly liable for violent behavior of an inmate the clinician assessed.

Provide three to five peer reviewed resources to support your explanations.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.