Psychologists in criminal proceedings: An international comparison

2022

This valuable compendium advances the understanding of mental health case law, making it highly accessible to practicing forensic professionals. Divided into two parts, the first section focuses on explaining important topics related to forensic psychological and forensic neuropsychological assessment, while the second section stands on its own as a collection of fascinating legal cases with high relevance to mental health and legal professionals interested in how mental health disorders impact criminal behavior among juveniles and adults. The book begins with an accessible primer on abnormal behavior, exploring the links between criminal behavior and mental health disorders. It goes on to thoroughly describe what goes into forensic psychological and forensic neuropsychological evaluations, including discussion about the Federal Rules of Evidence, as they pertain to evidence-generation during the mental health evaluation process. The book also focuses on psychometric concepts, including reliability, validity, sensitivity, and specificity, as well as an exploration of 'science' and 'the law' which includes a discussion about the difference between science and pseudoscience, the different sources of law (constitutions, statutes, and case law), and how the intellectually competitive practice of law is similar to the enterprise of science. Ethical issues faced by the forensic mental health worker are also addressed. The second section of the book, Legal Cases for the Forensic Mental Health Professional, is an alphabetical summary of important and interesting legal cases with relevance for mental health professionals. These cases offer realworld significance while summarizing complex legal decisions through a neuropsychological sieve, to allow both legal and psychological communities to better understand each other's professions. This book will be an invaluable resource for forensic psychologists, forensic neuropsychologists, forensic psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals whose work brings them into contact with the juvenile justice and adult criminal justice system. It will also be of interest to legal professionals, criminal justice departments, and law schools.

Medico-Legal Update, 2021

Forensic examination, as part of the criminal process, is a complex activity in which the diagnostic moment is abnormally integrated, as the diagnosis is not intended for treatment or cure. It is understandable that the influence exerted by psychiatric examination on court decisions (it is mostly about psychiatry in general), cannot be separated from the historical relationship between psychiatry and law. In countries where the assessment of irresponsibility is based on a psychopathological-normative method, it is necessary not only to recognize the mental disorder, but also to assess how this disorder interacts psychologically in compromising the ability to understand actions and desire the advent of consequences. Reflecting on the above arguments, this paper focuses on the importance of forensic psychiatry and psychiatric examination in criminal proceedings as a legal and medical study, as well as identifying critical aspects of the inseparable relationship between psychiatry and law, until the moment when the judge will decide whether the mental disorder under the Criminal Code prevented the perpetrator from understanding the act committed, as well as whether or not he wished the consequences that came from this act.

Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2022

We review the state of forensic mental health assessment. The field is in much better shape than in the past; however, significant problems of quality remain, with much room for improvement. We provide an overview of forensic psychology's history and discuss its possible future, with multiple audiences in mind. We distill decades of scholarship from and about fundamental basic science and forensic science, clinical and forensic psychology, and the law of expert evidence into eight best practices for the validity of a forensic psychological assessment. We argue these best practices should apply when a psychological assessment relies on the norms, values, and esteem of science to inform legal processes. The eight key considerations include (a) foundational validity of the assessment; (b) validity of the assessment as applied; (c) management and mitigation of bias; (d) attention to quality assurance; (e) appropriate communication of data, results, and opinions; (f) explicit consideration of limitations and assumptions; (g) weighing of alternative views or disagreements; and (h) adherence with ethical obligations, professional guidelines, codes of conduct, and rules of evidence.

Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1996

In the present paper, the author discusses 450 forensic cases on which he has worked between 1980 and 1992. O f these 420 (93 per cent) were criminal cases. Murder (33 per cent) and sexual offences (25 per cent) were the most common offences. The civil cases were mainly concerned with compensation, due to alleged post-traumatic stress disorder or head injury. Although the author has worked on a large number of different types of problems and issues, 60 per cent of the criminal cases involved disputed confessions. The author testified in court in 89 (20 per cent) of the 450 cases, with 33 of the cases being heard at the Old Bailey. The author concludes that in recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the demand for psychological services, particularly in the cases of disputed confessions and post-traumatic stress disorder which are highly specialized areas of court work. At present there appears to be an insufficient number of psychologists in England with the necessary experience and expertise to cope with the increased demand.

Neal, T.M.S. (2017). Identifying the forensic psychologist role. In G. Pirelli, R. Beattey, & P. Zapf (Eds.), The ethical practice of forensic psychology: A casebook (pp.1-17). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Since its debut over a century ago, forensic psychology has matured into a formally recognized specialty area of psychology with its own set of ethical guidelines; however, a consensual definition of forensic psychology remains elusive. After describing the field’s historical and current struggles to define itself, two ethical issues are discussed that are especially applicable to psychology in legal contexts. The first is the critical differences between serving in therapeutic versus forensic roles and the associated ethical obligation to refrain from serving in both roles in the same case. Despite the terminology used in the literature, treatment in forensic contexts can be ethically appropriate. This chapter considers the current state of the literature regarding treatment in forensic contexts and suggests that this is likely to be an area of future growth for the field. The second ethical issue discussed in this chapter is the insidious effect of the adversarial process on psychologists’ objectivity in forensic contexts, termed “forensic identification” or “adversarial allegiance.” The forensic ethical guidelines affirm the primacy of this issue in forensic contexts, as evidenced by addressing it in the first two published guidelines. However, field and experimental evidence suggest psychologists have a challenging (if not impossible) task in avoiding partiality in adversarial forensic contexts. The chapter ends by briefly considering the methods psychologist might use in an effort to reduce partiality and by recognizing more research is needed to identify what else psychologists can do to strive to uphold the ethical guidelines in this regard.

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2020

Forensic psychology in the 21st century entails the application of psychology to all aspects of the criminal justice process. Forensic psychologists, therefore, are engaged in the theorization of offending, offender profiling, the psychology of testimony, investigative interviewing, the psychology of juries and judges, and psychological approaches to the punishment and treatment of offenders. Historically, however, forensic psychology, has been narrower in scope. Founded principally in Europe during the late 19th century as a response to the reform of criminal procedure and research on suggestion, which undermined confidence in witness credibility, forensic psychology was initially pursued by jurists and psychiatrists eager to understand the behavior of all those involved in the criminal justice process. While this ambition was pursued piecemeal by jurists throughout the early 20th century in their studies of guilty knowledge, judges, jurors, and investigators, the exigencies of the...

Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 2009

Progress in forensic psychology has been rapid in some areas and nonexistent in others. By contrasting technological and conceptual scientific progress in three areas-the legal disposition of mentally ill offenders, risk appraisal, and theories of individual differences in antisocial behaviour-I attempt to identify some determinants of progress. Conceptual progress appears to depend even more heavily than technological progress on developments in the more advanced sciences, supporting the idea that consilience plays a vital heuristic role in psychology.

Forense Research Criminal International Journal, 2023

The importance of legal psychology at the international level has gained ground in the last ten years due to the increase in criminality within the so-called transnational organized crime. Drug trafficking, money laundering, human trafficking, femicides, migrant smuggling, and genocide are examples of criminal behavior that crosses borders between countries. The social, cultural, political, and economic implications that these antisocial behaviors entail makes it necessary to implement specialized, and trained professional teams for the identification, and management of criminal profiling, where Legal Psychology as one of the applications of social Psychology entails a great weight, and implies the clear delimitation of its functions, and the conceptual theoretical structure that grounds it as a science. The objective of this work is to publicize the importance of this behavioral science in the legal field, dimensioning its characteristics, and applications. Highlighting the broad development of forense psychology, the delimitations of criminological psychology, the overwhelming future of criminal, and victimological psychology, and the deficits in the field of judicial, and legal psychology are some of the issues that are reflected in this brief historical introduction.

2018

Psychology’s roots in Australia go back to 1881, but the first documented evidence of psychology-and-law (psycholegal) research and psychologists working in court and correctional settings only emerged in 1949. The activities of psycholegal researchers and psychologists providing services to the correction, investigative and justice systems are not well-documented. Our aim in this paper is to start recording the histories of these people and the development of the psycholegal and forensic psychology fields. We do this primarily by examining publications and conference papers and recording our and other people’s personal recollections. We specifically record psychologists’ interaction with lawyers, their concerns about professional and ethical issues and the teaching of forensic psychology. We finally give a brief overview of the current state of the two fields. 1 Pre-publication copy of paper published the October 2018 Newsletter of the Division 10 (Psychology and Law) of the Intern...

The Journal of Psychiatry & Law

In discussing the legal status of the psychologist in the courtroom, the more important but hidden issue of the social status of the psychologist must also be explored. Thus, although psychologists now routinely testify as expert witnesses on a whole range of issues in criminal and civil matters, a perception lingers in the minds of judges and jurors that the psychologist is a “second-rate” expert compared to the forensic psychiatrist. The roots of this assumption are examined, and it is suggested that psychologists themselves have helped perpetuate this myth. On the other hand, psychologists clearly do have special skills and techniques uniquely preparing them for certain courtroom work; in addition, participation in the judicial process enables psychologists to serve as advocates for social change. Psychologists must thus confront the background of the anticourtroom bias and educate all participants in the litigation process as to the need for appropriate psychological testimony.