User:CassidyMoses/sandbox

Current Concerns:


 * Going off track/including information that is too in-depth for this article (ex. profiling methods, assessing child sexual abuse allegations)
 * How much of original article to include... some areas of it were out of place/too specific/inaccurate
 * Basically just getting overwhelmed by what I should or should not be covering in this particular article/how in-depth and specific I should be going into information
 * What should I be highlighting in such a broad article topic??

= Forensic psychology = Forensic psychology, a subfield of psychology, involves the application of psychological knowledge and methods to both civil and criminal legal questions. Traditionally, it has a broad definition as well as a narrow definition. The broader classification states that forensic psychology involves the application of all psychological areas of research to the legal field, while the narrower definition characterizes forensic psychology as “The application of clinical specialties to legal institutions and people who come into contact with the law.” While the American Psychological Association (APA) officially recognized forensic psychology as a specialty under the narrower definition in 2001, the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists previously acknowledged by the APA in 1991 were revised in 2013 to include all subfields of psychology (e.g. social, clinical, experimental, counseling, neuropsychology) that apply "the scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge of psychology to the law."


 * note on public popularity in pop culture media (ex. criminal minds)... many students drawn to the field because of an interest in profiling, but this is not actually a very common or accepted part of the field
 * differences between legal psychology and forensic psychology

History

 * include portion on early history prior to APA recognition.... Hugo Münsterberg influence and pushback from legal field
 * include early cases (e.g. Brown v. Board of Education)
 * American Psychology-Law Society and Division 41 of APA, American Board of Forensic Psychology,

Evaluations

 * assess person’s psychological state for legal purposes

Treatment

 * reduce or prevent crime through treatment of psychological problems

Consultations

 * apply psychology knowledge/research to help law enforcement, attorneys, and courts

Criminal Profiling


 * profiling methods: scientific approach (FBI's crime scene analysis, Canter's Investigative Psychology) and intuitive approach (Tukey's Behavioral Evidence Analysis)

Jury Selection


 * methods and research

Expert Testimony 


 * providing psychologically accurate information/data to juries on subjects such as eyewitness testimony or rape myths

Unlike fact witnesses, who are limited to testifying about what they know or have observed, expert witnesses have the ability to express opinion because, as their name suggests, they are presumed to be "experts" in a certain topic. They possess specialized knowledge about the topic. Expert witnesses are called upon to testify on matters of mental health (clinical expertise) or other areas of expertise such as social, experimental, cognitive, or developmental. The role of being an expert witness is not primary and it is usually performed in conjunction with another role such as that of researcher, academic, evaluator, or clinical psychologist. Clinical forensic psychologists evaluate a defendant and are then called upon as expert witnesses to testify on the mental state of the defendant.

In the past, expert witnesses primarily served the court rather than the litigants. However, nowadays that very rarely happens and most of the recruitment for expert witness is completed by trial attorneys. But regardless of who calls in the expert, it is the judge who determines whether or not the expert witness will be accepted.

All ethical expert witnesses must be able to resolve the issue of relating to the case and being an advocate. They must decide between loyalty to their field of expertise or to the outcome of the case.

Research

 * make scientific discoveries relevant to forensic psychology

Education

 * teach others about psychology

Advocacy

 * use psychological knowledge/research to influence laws and policies

Forensic Psychological Evaluations
=== Types of Evaluations ===

Forensic Assessment of Competence
mental state at time of trial


 * Competence refers to the defendant's ability to appreciate and understand the charges and what is happening in the legal proceedings, as well as their ability to help the attorney understand and defend his/her case
 * If found incompetent to stand trial, the psychologist must give a recommendation on whether or not the defendant can be restored to competence
 * Typical aspects of CST evaluation: review of records, interviews (gen background, current mental state, questions related to competence), testing (for malingering, intelligence)
 * Causes of incompetence: brain damage, psychotic state
 * Essential Case Law?
 * Youtsey v. United States (1899): set standard for competence, trying or sentencing an individual deemed incompetent violates their rights, no official guidelines set yet
 * Dusky v. United States (1960): upheld Youtsey ruling, set specific criteria for competence (rational and factual understanding of court proceedings, able to consult with attorney in rational manner)
 * Wieter v. Settle (1961): psych opinion in competency hearings is "opinion testimony," set guidelines for evaluating competency (appreciates his own presence in relation to time, place, and things; understands that she is in a Court of Justice, charged with a criminal offense; recognizes that there is a Judge who presides over the Court; understands that there is a Prosecutor who will try to convict him of criminal charges; understands that she has a lawyer who will defend her against that charge; knows that he is expected to tell his attorney what he was doing at the time of the alleged offense; understands that a jury will determine whether she is guilty or innocent of the charges; has sufficient memory to discuss issues related to the alleged offense and the court proceedings)
 * Maybe add others?

Forensic Assessment of Insanity
mental state at time of crime


 * only acceptable to judge and punish if the individual was "sane" at the time of the crime
 * highlight mens rea and actus reus
 * Mens rea: exhibited free will and some intent to do harm
 * Actus reus: unlawful act
 * Definitions of insanity
 * M'Naghten: did not understand the nature and quality of acts or that acts were wrong, because of a mental disease or defect
 * Durham Test (Durham v. United States, 1954): actions were caused by a mental disorder
 * Brawner Rule/American Law Institute Standard: due to mental disease or defect, individual is unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of an act and are unable to conform behavior to the dictates of the law; U.S. v. Brawner (1972)
 * Legal proof of insanity: burden of proof and standard of evidence
 * affirmative defense: acknowledges actus reus but asserts lack of mens rea
 * Evaluating insanity:
 * Methods of evaluation: crime scene analysis, establish diagnosis, interview, verify impressions
 * Challenges: Malingering (add cases maybe?), determining past mental state...
 * Should I talk about exculpatory and mitigating doctrines other than insanity??
 * Diminished capacity
 * guilty but mentally ill or guilty but insane
 * automatism defense
 * self-defense
 * duress defense

Risk Assessment
ex recidivism


 * affects possibility of parole/being released
 * general methods: clinical prediction vs actuarial prediction
 * specific methods
 * Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), by Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier (1998)
 * Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG), by Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier (1998)

Forensic Evaluations in Death Penalty Cases

 * If a consultant, psychologist can:
 * review of records (psychosocial history, assess mitigating/aggravating factors)
 * jury consultant: (focus groups, shadow juries, mock juries, voir dire)
 * assessment without testimony (results not disclosed to prosecution team, allows defense team to develop a defense strategy)
 * If an expert witness, psychologist can:
 * research expert
 * mitigations specialist
 * Evaluator
 * evaluate competence (competence to be executed, established in Rees v. Peyton (1966), clarified Ford v. Wainwright (1986); issue during sentencing phase; Ford v. Wainwright (1986): must understand the reasons for the punishment, understand the punishment)
 * evaluate insanity
 * evaluate risk for future dangerousness

Assessments of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations
maybe discuss this? may be too in-depth for this article...

Distinction between forensic and therapeutic evaluation
A forensic psychologist's interactions with and ethical responsibilities to the client differ widely from those of a psychologist dealing with a client in a clinical setting.


 * Scope. Rather than the broad set of issues a psychologist addresses in a clinical setting, a forensic psychologist addresses a narrowly defined set of events or interactions of a nonclinical nature.
 * Importance of client's perspective. A clinician places primary importance on understanding the client's unique point of view, while the forensic psychologist is interested in accuracy, and the client's viewpoint is secondary.
 * Voluntariness. Usually in a clinical setting a psychologist is dealing with a voluntary client. A forensic psychologist evaluates clients by order of a judge or at the behest of an attorney.
 * Autonomy. Voluntary clients have more latitude and autonomy regarding the assessment's objectives. Any assessment usually takes their concerns into account. The objectives of a forensic examination are confined by the applicable statutes or common law elements that pertain to the legal issue in question.
 * Threats to validity. While the client and therapist are working toward a common goal, although unconscious distortion may occur, in the forensic context there is a substantially greater likelihood of intentional and conscious distortion.
 * Relationship and dynamics. Therapeutic interactions work toward developing a trusting, empathic therapeutic alliance, a forensic psychologist may not ethically nurture the client or act in a "helping" role, as the forensic evaluator has divided loyalties and there are substantial limits on confidentiality he can guarantee the client. A forensic evaluator must always be aware of manipulation in the adversary context of a legal setting. These concerns mandate an emotional distance that is unlike a therapeutic interaction.
 * Pace and setting. Unlike therapeutic interactions which may be guided by many factors, the forensic setting with its court schedules, limited resources, and other external factors, place great time constraints on the evaluation without opportunities for reevaluation. The forensic examiner focuses on the importance of accuracy and the finality of legal dispositions.

Ethics

 * Based on Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology
 * integrity, impartiality/fairness, avoiding conflicts of interest
 * Consider impact of personal beliefs and experiences
 * Relationships/multiple relationships (e.g. therapeudic-forensic role conflicts)
 * Fees/pro bono services
 * informed consent, communication
 * conflicts with legal authority (e.g. "complying with court orders that conflict with professional standards")
 * privacy, confidentiality, privilege
 * examples: remaining impartial when asked to consult for prosecution or defense team, remaining objective when giving expert testimony

Copied from original article: hardly touches on ethics/is confusing and slightly biased? A forensic psychologist generally practices within the confines of the courtroom, incarceration facilities, and other legal settings. It should be noted that the forensic psychologist is equally likely to be testifying for the prosecution as for the defense attorney. A forensic psychologist does not take a side. The ethical standards for a forensic psychologist differ from those of a clinical psychologist or other practicing psychologist because the forensic psychologist is not an advocate for the client and nothing the client says is guaranteed to be kept confidential. This makes evaluation of the client difficult, as the forensic psychologist needs and wants to obtain all information while it is often not in the client's best interest to provide it. The client has no control over how that information is used. Despite the signing of a waiver of confidentiality, most clients do not realize the nature of the evaluative situation. Furthermore, the interview techniques differ from those typical of a clinical psychologist and require an understanding of the criminal mind and criminal and violent behavior. For example, even indicating to a defendant being interviewed that an effort will be made to get the defendant professional help may be grounds for excluding the expert's testimony.

In addition, the forensic psychologist deals with a range of clients unlike those of the average practicing psychologist. Because the client base is by and large criminal, the forensic psychologist is immersed in an abnormal world. As such, the population evaluated by the forensic psychologist is heavily weighted with specific personality disorders.

The typical grounds for malpractice suits also apply to the forensic psychologist, such as wrongful commitment, inadequate informed consent, duty and breach of duty, and standards of care issues. Some situations are more clear cut for the forensic psychologist. The duty to warn, which is mandated by many states, is generally not a problem because the client or defendant has already signed a release of information, unless the victim is not clearly identified and the issue of the identifiability of the victim arises. However, in general the forensic psychologist is less likely to encounter malpractice suits than a clinical psychologist. The forensic psychologist does have some additional professional liability issues. As mentioned above, confidentiality in a forensic setting is more complicated than in a clinical setting as the client or defendant is apt to misinterpret the limits of confidentiality despite being warned and signing a release.