Menendez Brothers case study involves Erick Mendez and Lyle Mendez as two young men who were accused of murdering their parents. The young men's parents, Kitty Anderson and Jose Menendez, were fast asleep on the coach when the two sons entered the room and shot them dead by use of shotguns. Both brothers were later convicted for the murders they committed (Falk, 2010). Therefore the legal issue in this case is the murder of two people. There was evidence that the two sons had planned for this murder because the shotguns were bought several days before the murder. The two sons were eligible for a death penalty. The Menendez brothers defended themselves as they revealed to have been psychologically and sexually abused by their parents for two years.
They even painted pictorial representation showing how their father was abusive and controlling, and that the mother was mentally and emotionally unstable (Barlow& Durand, 2009). According to their words, they committed the two murders because they feared that the parents could kill them, but according to the prosecution, the two boys were both selfish and greed as they wanted to posses their parents' wealthy. The Menendez brothers underwent two different trials each of which they appealed not guilty. The ethical issue was that the Menendez brothers did not take the right option for murdering their parents so as to possess the substantial wealth (Barlow& Durand, 2009).
According to Barlow& Durand (2009), civil commitment can be defined as a process that involves a judge's decision on whether it is necessary for an individual who is suspected to have mental illness to be attended to in a psychiatric hospital or given other possible treatment for mental health. A civil commitment is not considered a criminal conviction since the individual's actions are propelled by her mental abnormality, and therefore a civil commitment is not recorded on a criminal record. When the petition over a civil commitment has been put in file, the community mental health program investigator will be required to look into the motive for the commitment.
An individual can be committed if a judge finds out that the person has a mental illness and, because the mental illness is unsafe to self or others. Criminal commitment is defined as a procedure by which an individual is confined within a mental institution to determine whether the person is competent to stand a trial or is insane and therefore not to be judged guilty. Civil commitment is different from criminal commitment in the following ways: civil commitments usually take place for an undefined period of time, whereas criminal commitments generally take place for a definite period of time; and to argue against a civil commitment requires evidence that is patent and convincing against the contrary, whereas a criminal commitment merely requires prevalence of the evidence (Sue, Sue & Sue, 2008).
The Menendez brothers were insane since they expressed an abnormal behavior by murdering own parents so as to possess the substantial wealth they owned. They defended themselves to have murdered the parents because the parents had mental disorders and could kill them. The jury rejected this defense theory and believed that the murders were committed deliberately to gain control of the sizable wealthy of their parents. The two brothers were not competent to stand the trial because they were later discovered not to have done the murders deliberately but due to insanity (Falk, 2010). A piece of information is confidential when it can only be disclosed to an authorized individual.
In the context of law, lawyers are usually expected by law to ensure that any information concerning the client's representation should be kept confidential. A therapist will be involved to warn such like individuals after committing a crime like murdering another person, to avoid subsequent crimes. The two brothers could not be warned earlier by a therapist since they didn't have any history of violence. Because the Menendez brothers were believed to have murdered the parents so as to possess their sizeable wealth, they were not responsible to work hard and acquire their own wealth. Therefore, before committed the crime, they could be advised to be hard working and get riches by themselves.