User:WAR2020UPRC/Forensic psychology

Forensic psychology, a subfield of psychology, it has a narrow definition and a broad definition. The broad definition states the application of clinical psychology to the legal system, although the broad definition says that forensic psychology involves clinical work in correctional facilities, counseling for trial lawyers, serve as an expert witness in legal trials and formulate public policy on psychology and law. Forensic psychology is interlaced with the legal field, it requires an understanding of fundamental legal principles, such as those regarding standard legal practices and standards used by legal professionals, expert witness testimony, competence and insanity definitions and evaluations, and so on in order to be able to communicate effectively with judges, attorneys, and other legal professionals.

Contents[edit]

1History
- 1.1Forensic Psychology in Popular Culture[edit]
2Training and Education[edit]
3Roles of a Forensic Psychologist[edit]
- 3.1Practice/Direct Service[edit]
  - 3.1.1Evaluations and Diagnosis[edit]
  - 3.1.2Treatment or Intervention[edit]
  - 3.1.3Consultations and Assessments [edit]
- 3.2Research[edit]
- 3.3Education and Advocacy[edit]
4Forensic psychological evaluations[edit]
- 4.1Common types of evaluations[edit]
  - 4.1.1Forensic assessment of competence[edit]
  - 4.1.2Forensic Assessment of Insanity[edit]
  - 4.1.3Risk Assessment[edit]
  - 4.1.4Other Types of Evaluations[edit]
- 4.2Distinction Between Forensic and Therapeutic Evaluation[edit]
5Ethics in Forensic Psychology[edit]
6Notable Research in Forensic Psychology[edit]
7See also[edit]
8Footnotes[edit]
9Further reading[edit]
10Notable Research

History[edit][edit]

Psychology was founded principally in Europe during the late 19^th century. The term forensic psychology was introduced by Wilhelm Wundt, often called the father of psychology, in 1879. He founded the first lab in psychology, at the University of Leipzig in Germany. At first, he did not receive much attention, only four students attend his first class, in 1890 his classes were saturated. As the term flourish, many other significant contributions were developed by other experts. James McKeen Cattell conducts early research on the psychology of testimony. McKeen discovers an amazing degree of inaccuracy in eyewitness testimony, this caused a serious problem about eyewitness in court. Alfred Binet's works on intelligence testing were also important to the blossom of forensic psychology. Hugo Munsterberg’s, German- American psychologist, in 1915 published “On the Witness Stand” that promoted the usage of psychology in the legal system. Lewis Terman, a Stanford psychologist review Binet’s intelligence test. Terman improves Binet’s intelligence test, naming this one “The New Standford Binet Test” was mainly used to evaluate the intelligence of job candidates for law enforcement positions. Forensic psychology gains traction after World War II, previous that time psychologists work as expert witnesses on trails that were not perceived as infringing on medical specialists. Despite, in 1954 the case of Brown v. Board Education of Topeka testified several psychologists, but it was not until April 1965 that psychologists received support from the court to them to serve as mental illness experts in the case Jenkins v. The United States. Therefore, the case Jenkins v. The United States' help to the legislation of forensic psychology was the case that achieves the legislation of forensic psychology.

The American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS) was created in 1969 and was later converted into Division 41 of the APA in 1980. In 1976 the American Board of Forensic Psychology (ABFP) was chartered and eventually became a part of the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP) in 1985.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." This merging marked the development of the first certification for psychologists wanting to work within the field of forensic psychology.

Forensic Psychology in Popular Culture[edit][edit][edit]

Forensic psychology has seen a large spike in popularity, in the media and among younger generations within recent years. In fact, many undergraduate students are drawn to this subject under the misconception that forensic psychology is primarily used for criminal profiling. TV shows and movies such as Criminal Minds, Mindhunter, and Silence of The Lambs have widely popularized the practice of criminal profiling, particularly within the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU). Despite the excitement given to the idea of a career in criminal profiling, students who show an interest in this particular aspect of forensic psychology come to find that the practice of criminal profiling is rarely used outside of the BAU.

Forensic Psychology Salary[edit]

Psychologists working in settings where the psychologist and the law overlap are highly demanded. Based on BLS Stats, some of the highest-paid forensic psychologists are those who worked as consultants, earning an annual average of $115, 360. A forensic psychologist working for the state government earned an average of $104, 280 while those working for the federal government earned just $94,670. ^[1]

Ten top Salary of a Forensic Psychologist in the United States[edit]

State	Annual Salary	Hourly Wage
Washington	$118,759	$57.10
New York	$112, 532	$54.10
New Hampshire	$108,901	$52.36
California	$106,149	$51.03
Massachusetts	$103,642	$49.83
Vermont	$102,732	$49.39
Wyoming	$100,644	$48.39
Hawaii	$100,411	48.27
Idaho	$99,820	$47.99
Maine	$98,402	$47.31

Training and Education[edit][edit][edit]

Individuals who are pursuing forensic psychology careers should focus on psychology, criminal justice, or forensic. Forensic psychologists should have a well understanding of forensic science and psychology. Individuals who want to be forensic psychology first must earn a bachelor’s and a master’s degree before going to doctorate school. Individuals have to complete a graduate research program and an accredited internship. Each state requires a license, this depends on each state's licensure requirements. This licensure is not required to become a forensic psychologist. Perhaps, it is recommended because some courts may find an unlicensed psychologist unfit to report and this could amplify your marketability. Although, most states require a doctorate in psychology, supervised hours, and an exam. Before enrolling in a program, a student should search for colleges that have the APA accreditation, this one is the highest accreditation for forensic psychology degrees. Having an adequate doctoral degree is important for licensing issues. In the United States particular states ask for some specific program-level accreditation.

Roles of a Forensic Psychologist[edit][edit][edit]

Practice/Direct Service[edit][edit][edit]

Evaluations and Diagnosis[edit][edit][edit]

Evaluations and diagnosis are completed by forensic psychologists to assess a person's psychological state for legal purposes. Reasons for completing these evaluations can involve acquiring information for the criminal court (such as insanity or incompetence), for criminal sentencing or parole hearings (often regarding a potential intellectual disability that prevents sentencing or one's risk of recidivism), for the family court (including child custody or parental termination cases), or civil court (involving personal injury or competence to decide). It is important to note that while a forensic psychologist is responsible for assessing and reporting the results of an evaluation, the responsibility ends here. Any decisions made based on these reports from forensic psychologists are up to other legal professionals. This also means that any assessment made by an evaluator is not considered a counseling session, and therefore whatever is said or done is not confidential. It is the obligation of the evaluator to inform the individual being evaluated that everything in the session will be open to scrutiny in a forensic report or expert testimony. Forensic psychologists conducting evaluations may also function as expert witnesses as many are called into court to testify about the results of their evaluations. They have a variety of employment settings, such as forensic and state psychiatric hospitals, mental health centers, and private practice. Evaluators usually have had training as clinical psychologists.

Treatment or Intervention[edit][edit][edit]

Treatment providers may be asked to administer psychological interventions to those who require or request services in both criminal and civil cases. Regarding criminal cases, forensic psychologists can work with individuals who have already been sentenced to reduce recidivism, which refers to one's likelihood of repeating his or her offense. Other interventions that may be implemented in these settings are drug and alcohol abuse treatment, sex offender treatment, treatment for a mental illness, or anger management courses. As for civil proceedings, treatment providers may have to treat families going through a divorce and/or custody cases. They may also provide treatment to individuals who have suffered psychological injuries as a result of some kind of trauma. Treatment providers and evaluators work in the same types of settings: forensic and state psychiatric hospitals, mental health centers, and private practices.

Consultations and Assessments [edit][edit][edit]

Providing consultations allows forensic psychologists to apply psychological expertise and research to help law enforcement, attorneys, and other legal professionals or proceedings better understanding of human behavior (e.g. criminal, witness, victim, jury), civil processes, effects of trauma, or other life events, and so on. If working as a consultant, a forensic psychologist can be involved in legal proceedings through responsibilities such as reviewing court records (such as a defendant's psychosocial history or assess mitigating or aggravating factors in a case), serving as a jury consultant (organizing focus groups, shadow juries, mock juries, or helping with the voir dire proceedings), and assessment without testimony (in which results of a defendant's evaluation are not disclosed to the prosecution team, allowing the defense team to develop a defense strategy), among others. Essentially, consultations can take several forms, including the common ones below:

Law Enforcement Consultations may take the form of assisting with criminal profiling, developing hiring procedures and methods, determining the psychological fitness of returning officers, or simply lending expertise on certain criminal behaviors. As mentioned above, criminal profiling is a very appealing aspect of psychology to prospective forensic psychologists even though it isn't very widely used within the field. There are several methods and approaches related to criminal profiling, but there is still a lot of skepticism about the efficiency and accuracy of criminal profiling in general. A couple of common approaches are the scientific approach, which includes the FBI's Crime Scene Analysis and Canter's Investigative Psychology, and the intuitive approach, which includes Tukey's Behavioral Evidence Analysis.

Trial Consultants are psychologists who work with legal professionals, such as attorneys, to aid in case preparation. This includes jury selection, development of case strategy, and witness preparation. Forensic psychologists working as trial consultants rely on research to best advise the individuals they are working with. Because trial consultants are often hired by one specific side in a trial, these psychologists are faced with many ethical issues. It is the responsibility of the psychologist to remain neutral when consulting—in other words, the consultant must not choose aside to support and consequentially omit or create information that would be beneficial to one side or another. Before accepting a case to work on, the forensic psychologist must weigh the responsibilities of consulting on that case with the ethical guidelines put in place for the field of forensic psychology.

Expert Testimony about matters relating to psychology is also an area in which forensic psychologists play an active role. Unlike fact witnesses, who are limited to testifying about what they know or have observed, expert witnesses can express further knowledge of a situation or topic because, as their name suggests, they are presumed to be "experts" in a certain topic and possess specialized knowledge about it. Expert witnesses in forensic psychology 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. In the past, expert witnesses primarily served the court rather than the litigants. However, nowadays that rarely happens and most of the recruitment for an 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.

Research[edit][edit][edit]

Forensic psychologist researchers make scientific discoveries relevant to psychology and the law. These professionals usually have an advanced degree in Psychology (most likely a Ph.D.). While their main focus is research, it is not unusual for them to take on any of the other positions of forensic psychologists. These professionals may be employed in various settings, which include colleges and universities, research institutes, government or private agencies, and mental health agencies. Forensic psychology research pertains to psychology and the law, whether it be criminal or civil. Researchers test hypotheses empirically and apply the research to issues related to psychology and the law. They may also research mental health law and policy evaluation. Some famous psychologists in the field include Saul Kassin, very widely known for studying false confessions, and Elizabeth Loftus, known for her research on eyewitness memory. She has provided expert witness testimony for many cases.

Education and Advocacy[edit][edit][edit]

Academic forensic psychologists engage in teaching, researching, training, and supervision of students, among other education-related activities. These professionals also have an advanced degree in Psychology (most likely a Ph.D.) and are most often employed at colleges and universities. In addition to holding professorships, forensic psychologists may engage in education through presenting research, hosting talks relating to a particular subject, or engaging with and educating the community about a relevant forensic psychological topic. Advocacy is another form of education, in which forensic psychologists use psychological research to influence laws and policies. These may be related to certain movements, such as Black Lives Matter or the Me Too movement, or may even be related to certain civil rights that are being overlooked.

Forensic psychological evaluations[edit][edit][edit]

Common types of evaluations[edit][edit][edit]

Forensic assessment of competence[edit][edit][edit]

Competence, in a legal setting, refers to the defendant's ability to appreciate and understand the charges against them and what is happening in the legal proceedings, as well as their ability to help the attorney understand and defend his or her case. While competence is assessed by a psychologist, its concern regarding a defendant is typically voiced by the attorney. Though it is the psychologist's responsibility to assess for competence, it is ultimately up to the judge to decide whether the defendant is competent or not. If the defendant is found incompetent to stand trial, the psychologist must then recommend whether or not the defendant can be restored to competence through treatment or if the charges should be dropped completely due to incompetence. A couple of potential causes of incompetence includes certain types of brain damage or the occurrence of a psychotic episode preventing the individual from registering the reality around them.

Several cases were instrumental in developing a standard for competence, as well as for determining the rights of an individual deemed incompetent to stand trial. Youtsey v. the United States (1899) was one of the cases that set the standard for competence, with the judge ruling that trying or sentencing an individual deemed incompetent violates their human rights. Despite this ruling, no official guidelines for determining and sentencing matters of competence were developed. In Dusky v. United States (1960), the case upheld the Youtsey v. United States ruling and set specific criteria for competence. These include having a rational and factual understanding of court proceedings and being able to consult with an attorney rationally. The case of Weiter v. Settle (1961) resulted in the decision that a psychologist's opinion in a competency hearing is considered "opinion testimony." Additionally, guidelines were put in place to accurately evaluate competency. The eight guidelines established include requirements that the defendant appreciates one's presence about 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, and has sufficient memory to discuss issues related to the alleged offense and the court proceedings. As time has progressed, more cases have added to these guidelines and expectations when evaluating competency.

Forensic Assessment of Insanity[edit][edit][edit]

Insanity, as opposed to competence, refers to an individual's mental state at the time of the crime rather than at the time of the trial. According to legal principles of insanity, it is only acceptable to judge, find someone criminally responsible, and/or punish a defendant if that individual was sane at the time of the crime. To be considered sane, the defendant must have exhibited both men's rea and actus reus. Mens rea, translated to "guilty mind" indicates that the individual exhibited free will and some intent to harm at the time of the crime. Actus reus refers to the voluntary committing of an unlawful act. The insanity defense acknowledges that, while an unlawful act did occur, the individual displayed a lack of men's rea. The burden of proof in determining if a defendant is insane lies with the defense team. A notable case relating to this type of assessment is that of Ford v. Wainwright, in which it was decided that forensic psychologists must be appointed to assess the competency of an inmate to be executed in death penalty cases.

There are various definitions of insanity acknowledged within the legal system. The M'Naghten/McNaughton rule (1843) defines insanity as the individual not understanding the nature and quality of his or her acts or that these acts were wrong due to a mental disease or defect. This is also referred to as the cognitive capacity test. Meanwhile, the Durham Test (established in Durham v. the United States, 1954) states that one can be declared insane if the actions were caused by a mental disorder. The vague nature of this description causes this definition to only be used in one state (NH). The final definition acknowledged within the courts is the Brawner Rule (U.S. v. Brawner, 1972), also referred to as the American Law Institute Standard. This definition posits that, due to a mental disease or defect, an individual is considered insane if unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of an act and are unable to conform their behavior to the dictates of the law.

Evaluating insanity involves using crime scene analysis to determine the mental state at the time of the crime, establishing a diagnosis, interviewing the defendant and any other relevant witnesses, and verifying impressions of the defendant. Challenges associated with this type of assessment involve defendant malingering, determining the defendant's past mental state, the chance that different experts may come to different conclusions depending on the assessment method used, and the fact that it is very common for society to label any psychological disorder as insane (though few fall into this category; insanity primarily involves psychotic disorders).

Risk Assessment[edit][edit][edit]

Risk assessment evaluates how dangerous an individual is/could be and the risk of their re-offending after being released also referred to as recidivism. Typically, recidivism refers to violent or sex offending behavior. Risk assessments affect the possibility of an inmate receiving parole and/or being released from prison and involve two general methods. The clinical prediction method involves using clinical judgment and experience to predict risk, while the actuarial prediction method utilizes a research-based formula to predict risk. Two specific methods of risk assessment involve the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORGA), both created by Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier in 1998.

Other Types of Evaluations[edit][edit][edit]

While insanity and competency assessments are among the most common criminal assessments administered within the legal system, there are several other types implemented. Some of these include death penalty case assessments, assessments of child sexual abuse, assessments for child custody or divorce cases, and civil court assessments.

Ethics in Forensic Psychology[edit][edit][edit]

The ethical recommendations and expectations outlined for forensic psychology specifically are listed in the APA's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology. These guidelines involve reminders that forensic psychologists should value integrity, impartiality, and fairness, as well as avoid conflicts of interest when possible. These conflicts of interest may arise in situations in which the psychologist is working as a consultant to one side or another in a court case, when the psychologist is required to testify or evaluate something that collides with their own beliefs or values, or when a psychologist is faced with the decision of choosing between playing the role of an individual's evaluator or treatment provider in a case. This final conflict of interest also relates to the ethical guidelines relating to having multiple relationships with clients. Also as a standard of ethics, forensic psychologists are expected to offer a certain amount of reduced fee or pro bono services for individuals who may not be able to afford to hire a psychologist for a court case otherwise. Other ethical guidelines involve receiving informed consent from clients before communicating information regarding their treatment or evaluations, respecting and acknowledging privacy/confidentiality/privilege among clients, remaining impartial and objective when involved in a trial, and weighing the moral and ethical costs of complying with any court orders that may conflict with professional standards.

Sources for Additional Information[edit]

Notable Research on Forensic Psychology[edit]

Stern, W. (1939). "The psychology of testimony". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology . 34 (1): 3–20. doi :10.1037/h0054144. ISSN 0096-851X.
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2006). History of Forensic Psychology. In I. B. Weiner & A. K. Hess (Eds.), The handbook of forensic psychology (p. 3–27). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Stewart, Destin N.; Jacquin, Kristine M. (2010-11-18). "Juror Perceptions in a Rape Trial: Examining the Complainant's Ingestion of Chemical Substances Prior to Sexual Assault". Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma . 19 (8): 853–874. doi :10.1080/10926771.2011.522951. ISSN 1092-6771.
Loftus, Elizabeth F (1975-10). "Leading questions and the eyewitness report". Cognitive Psychology . 7 (4): 560–572. doi :10.1016/0010-0285(75)90023-7.
Viljoen, Jodi L.; Jonnson, Melissa R.; Cochrane, Dana M.; Vargen, Lee M.; Vincent, Gina M. (2019-10). "Impact of risk assessment instruments on rates of pretrial detention, postconviction placements, and release: A systematic review and meta-analysis". Law and Human Behavior . 43 (5): 397–420. doi :10.1037/lhb0000344. ISSN 1573-661X.
Holcomb, Matthew J.; Jacquin, Kristine M. (2007-07-03). "Juror Perceptions of Child Eyewitness Testimony in a Sexual Abuse Trial". Journal of Child Sexual Abuse . 16 (2): 79–95. doi :10.1300/J070v16n02_05. ISSN 1053-8712.
Kassin, S. & Wrightsman, L. (1980). Prior confessions and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 10, 133 146.
Smalarz, Laura; Madon, Stephanie; Yang, Yueran; Guyll, Max; Buck, Sarah (2016). "The perfect match: Do criminal stereotypes bias forensic evidence analysis?". Law and Human Behavior . 40 (4): 420–429. doi :10.1037/lhb0000190. ISSN 1573-661X.
Harris, Paige B.; Boccaccini, Marcus T.; Murrie, Daniel C. (2015-08). "Rater differences in psychopathy measure scoring and predictive validity". Law and Human Behavior . 39 (4): 321–331. doi :10.1037/lhb0000115. ISSN 1573-661X.
Khurshid, Ayesha; Jacquin, Kristine M. (November 2013). "Expert Testimony Influences Juror Decisions in Criminal Trials Involving Recovered Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse". Journal of Child Sexual Abuse . 22 (8): 949–967. doi :10.1080/10538712.2013.839592. ISSN 1053-8712.
Garry, Maryanne; Manning, Charles G.; Loftus, Elizabeth F.; Sherman, Steven J. (1996-06). "Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review . 3 (2): 208–214. doi :10.3758/BF03212420. ISSN 1069-9384.
Kassin, Saul M.; Drizin, Steven A.; Grisso, Thomas; Gudjonsson, Gisli H.; Leo, Richard A.; Redlich, Allison D. (2010). "Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations". Law and Human Behavior . 34 (1): 3–38. doi :10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6. ISSN 1573-661X.
Icenogle, G., Steinberg, L., Duell, N., Chein, J., Chang, L., Chaudhary, N.,...Bacchini, D. (2019). Adolescents' cognitive capacity reaches adult levels prior to their psychosocial maturity: Evidence for a "maturity gap" in a multinational, cross-sectional sample. Law and Human Behavior, 43 (1), 69–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000315
Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., Meissner, C. A., & Wixted, J. T. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44 (1), 3–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000359
Brubacher, S. P., Poole, D. A., Dickinson, J. J., La Rooy, D., Szojka, Z. A., & Powell, M. B. (2019). Effects of interviewer familiarity and supportiveness on children’s recall across repeated interviews. Law and Human Behavior . Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000346
Campbell, R., Feeney, H., Goodman-Williams, R., Sharma, D. B., & Pierce, S. J. (2019). Connecting the dots: Identifying suspected serial sexual offenders through forensic DNA evidence. Psychology of Violence . Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000243

Footnotes[edit][edit][edit]

^
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c ^d ^e
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c ^d ^e
^
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c ^d ^e
^
^
^
^
^
^ Jump up to:^a ^b
^
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c ^d
^
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c ^d

^
^
^
^
^
^
^