Applied Psychology: Forensic Psychology

Introduction
History
Training and education
Roles of a forensic psychologist
Forensic psychological evaluations
Ethics in forensic psychology

Introduction

Forensic psychology, a subfield of psychology, is concerned with the application of psychological knowledge and methods to civil and criminal legal issues. It has traditionally had both a broad and a narrow definition. The broader definition of forensic psychology is "the application of clinical specialties to legal institutions and people who come into contact with the law," whereas the narrower definition is "the application of clinical specialties to legal institutions and people who come into contact with the law." While the American Psychological Association (APA) officially recognised forensic psychology as a specialty under a narrower definition in 2001, the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists were revised in 2013 and now include all subfields of psychology that apply "the scientific, technical, or specialised knowledge of psychology to the law."

Legal psychology, in addition to forensic psychology, is practised under the umbrella term of psychology and law, as recognised by Division 41 of the APA, American Psychology-Law Society. Legal psychology, as a whole, focuses on many of the same aspects that forensic psychology does, namely how psychology can be applied to the legal field. As a result, these subfields are frequently used interchangeably, with the exception that legal psychology typically does not include clinical matters within its scope. Forensic psychology is the best way to explain these issues, particularly those directly related to mental health.

History

Psychology was founded in the United States in 1879 by American students returning home from Wilhelm Wundt's experimental psychology lab in Germany. In addition to the schools of the field taught by Wundt, many of these returning students had interests in law (e.g., testimonies, individual's functional capacity). Nonetheless, the concept of psychology was not introduced until several years later, in the first decade of the twentieth century, by Hugo Münsterberg, the first director of Harvard's psychological laboratory and the founder of applied psychology. Despite his attempts to imbue his expertise in the legal field, his approach was reported as condescending and abrasive, causing anger and scrutiny from the legal community toward his research. In response, this community rejected Münsterberg's ideas, labeling them as Yellow Psychology, impractical, and exaggerated, though this interpretation of history has been challenged. Following this backlash, clinical psychology was largely ignored by legal professionals until after WWII, when it was recognised as a legitimate allied health profession and became more successful in contributing to legal proceedings. Whereas cases like Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) raised awareness of psychology's ability to influence legal decisions, it was cases like Jenkins v. the United States (1962) that truly legitimised it. In the latter case, the D.C. Circuit ruled for the first time that clinical psychologists should be treated as expert witnesses when discussing mental illness.

The American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS) was founded in 1969 and was later absorbed into Division 41 of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1980. As the field expanded, more organisations dedicated to the study and application of psychology to the law arose. The American Board of Forensic Psychology (ABFP) was founded in 1976 and later merged with the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP) in 1985. This collaboration resulted in the creation of the first certification for psychologists wishing to work in the field of forensic psychology. Later organisations and conferences, such as the American Academy of Forensic Psychology and the National Invitational Conference on Education and Training in Forensic Psychology, aided in the development of forensic psychology (1995).

Forensic psychology in popular culture

In recent years, forensic psychology has seen a significant increase in popularity, both in the media and among younger generations. Indeed, many undergraduate students are drawn to forensic psychology under the mistaken impression that it is primarily used for criminal profiling. TV shows and films like Criminal Minds, Mindhunter, and Silence of the Lambs have popularised criminal profiling, particularly within the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU). Despite the excitement surrounding the prospect of a career in criminal profiling, students who express an interest in this particular aspect of forensic psychology discover that criminal profiling is rarely used outside of the BAU. They also discover that many forensic psychology practises exist outside of criminal proceedings.

The manner in which forensic psychology is presented is one of the reasons it is so popular. It's presented in a fun, addictive, and entertaining manner. It allows us to stand back and observe how twisted people can be. In some ways, it's a window into how different people's brains work and how certain decisions, such as murder, can shape the brain differently. Consider it in terms of a baseball game. Even though they are only watching, people feel as if they are a part of the game.

Training and education

Forensic psychology is a subset of applied psychology in a broad sense. Forensic psychologists may be Ph.D. or Psy.D. holders in clinical psychology, counselling psychology, social psychology, organisational psychology, school psychology, or experimental psychology. In the United States, there are no specific licencing requirements for forensic psychologists. A clinical-forensic psychologist must have a licence to practise clinical or "health services," but no additional licence is required to practise clinical-forensic psychology. Some states do not require psychologists who do not provide healthcare services to be licenced at all. Forensic psychologists should have at least a few years of postdoctoral experience, training, and supervision or mentoring in forensic psychology.

Training and practitioner requirements may differ in other countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, a person must first obtain the Graduate Basis for Registration with the British Psychological Society, which is typically obtained through an undergraduate degree. Following this, Stages 1 (academic) and 2 (supervised practise) of the Diploma in Forensic Psychology would be completed (which would normally take 3 years full-time and 4 years part-time). Examination, research, supervised practise, and the submission of a portfolio demonstrating expertise in a variety of criminological and legal applications of psychology are all used to assess students. Once qualified as a "Chartered" psychologist (with a specialism in forensic psychology), a practitioner must engage in Continued Professional Development and demonstrate how much and what kind of CPD he or she is receiving each year in order to renew his or her practising certificate.

Roles of a forensic psychologist

Practice/direct service

Evaluations and assessments

Forensic psychologists conduct evaluations and assessments to determine a person's psychological state for legal purposes. Obtaining information for criminal court (such as insanity or incompetence), criminal sentencing or parole hearings (often regarding a potential intellectual disability that prevents sentencing or one's risk of recidivism), family court (including child custody or parental termination cases), or civil court are all reasons for completing these evaluations (involving personal injury or competence to decide). It is important to note that while a forensic psychologist is responsible for assessing and reporting evaluation results, this is where their responsibilities end. Any decisions made based on these forensic psychologist reports are the responsibility of other legal professionals. This also implies that any evaluator's assessment is not considered a counselling session, and thus whatever is said or done is not confidential. It is the evaluator's responsibility to inform the individual being evaluated that everything said during the session will be scrutinised in a forensic report or expert testimony. Many forensic psychologists who conduct evaluations are called into court to testify about the results of their evaluations, so they may also serve as expert witnesses. They can work in a variety of settings, including forensic and state psychiatric hospitals, mental health centres, and private practise. Clinical psychologists are commonly used as evaluators.

Child custody arrangements can play an important role in a forensic psychologist's career. There are numerous assessments given to children before the psychologist renders an educated opinion on the child's placement or custody arrangement. Psychological tests, academic tests, objective personality tests, and projective personality tests are administered to them. These are used to determine which custody arrangement is best for the child. This process also includes interviewing the child to determine whether it would be harmful to the child.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 and the Weschler scales are two common assessments. The MMPI-2 is used to assess people's personalities. The Weschler scale is similar to an IQ test in that it assesses intelligence. Patients with mental illnesses, criminals, and getting a sense of a suspect's behaviour and personality are examples of situations where the MMPI-2 and Weschler scale are used. There are tests for sexual predators, such as RSVP and SVR-20. A person's profile and next steps can be determined by analysing their specific patterns, actions, and history.

Treatment

In both criminal and civil cases, treatment providers may be asked to administer psychological interventions to those who require or request services. In criminal cases, forensic psychologists can work with people who have already been sentenced to reduce recidivism, or the likelihood of repeating an offence. Other interventions that may be used in these settings include drug and alcohol abuse treatment, sex offender treatment, mental illness treatment, and anger management classes. In the case of civil proceedings, treatment providers may be required to treat families undergoing divorce and/or custody proceedings. They may also treat people who have suffered psychological injuries as a result of a traumatic event. Treatment providers and evaluators both work in similar settings: forensic and state psychiatric hospitals, mental health centres, and private practises.

Consultations

By offering consultations, forensic psychologists can use their psychological expertise and research to assist law enforcement, attorneys, and other legal professionals or proceedings in better understanding human behaviour (e.g., criminal, witness, victim, jury), civil processes, the effects of trauma or other life events, and so on.

Research

Forensic psychologists conduct research that is relevant to both psychology and the law. These professionals typically hold a master's degree in psychology (most likely a PhD). While their primary focus is research, it is not uncommon for them to hold any of the other forensic psychology positions. These professionals may work in a variety of settings, including colleges and universities, research institutes, government or private agencies, and mental health organisations. Forensic psychology research is concerned with psychology and the law, whether criminal or civil. Researchers empirically test hypotheses and apply their findings to issues in psychology and law. In addition, they may conduct research on mental health law and policy evaluation. Some well-known psychologists in the field include Saul Kassin, who is well-known for his work on false confessions, and Elizabeth Loftus and Gary Wells, who are both well-known for their work on eyewitness memory. These and other researchers have testified as expert witnesses in numerous cases.

Education and advocacy

Academic forensic psychologists teach, conduct research, train, and supervise students, among other educational activities. These professionals typically work at colleges and universities and have an advanced degree in Psychology (most likely a PhD). In addition to professorships, forensic psychologists may engage in education by presenting research, hosting talks on a specific topic, or engaging with and educating the community on a relevant forensic psychological topic. Another type of education is advocacy, in which forensic psychologists use psychological research to influence laws and policies. These could be related to movements like Black Lives Matter or the Me Too movement, or they could be related to civil rights that are being overlooked.

Forensic psychological evaluations

Common types of evaluations

Forensic assessment of competence

Competence in a legal context refers to the defendant's ability to appreciate and comprehend the charges levelled against them as well as what is going on in the legal proceedings, as well as their ability to assist the lawyer in understanding and defending his or her case. While a psychologist evaluates competence, the lawyer is usually the one who expresses concern about a defendant. [19] Though the psychologist is responsible for assessing competence, it is ultimately up to the judge to decide whether or not the defendant is competent.If the defendant is found incompetent to stand trial, the psychologist must make a recommendation as to whether the defendant's competence can be restored through treatment or if the charges should be dropped entirely due to incompetence. Certain types of brain damage or the occurrence of a psychotic episode that prevents the individual from registering the reality around them are two potential causes of incompetence.

Several cases aided in the development of a standard for competence, as well as in determining the rights of a person deemed incompetent to stand trial. One of the cases that established the standard for competence was Youtsey v. United States (1899), in which the judge ruled that trying or sentencing an individual deemed incompetent violated their human rights. Despite this decision, no official guidelines for determining and sentencing competence issues were developed. The case of Dusky v. United States (1960) upheld the Youtsey v. United States ruling and established specific criteria for competence. These include having a rational and factual understanding of court proceedings and being able to rationally consult with an attorney. Several cases aided in the development of a standard for competence, as well as in determining the rights of a person deemed incompetent to stand trial. One of the cases that established the standard for competence was Youtsey v. United States (1899), in which the judge ruled that trying or sentencing an individual deemed incompetent violated their human rights. Despite this decision, no official guidelines for determining and sentencing competence issues were developed. The case of Dusky v. United States (1960) upheld the Youtsey v. United States ruling and established specific criteria for competence. These include having a rational and factual understanding of court proceedings and being able to rationally consult with an attorney. The eight established guidelines include requirements that the defendant appreciates one's own presence in relation to time, place, and things; understands that she is in a Court of Justice, charged with a criminal offence; recognises 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; and understands that he is expected to. More cases have been added to these guidelines and expectations for evaluating competency as time has passed.

Forensic assessment of insanity

Insanity, as opposed to competence, refers to a person's mental state at the time of the crime, not at the time of the trial. According to legal insanity principles, it is only permissible to judge, find someone criminally responsible for, and/or punish a defendant if that individual was sane at the time of the crime. The defendant must have demonstrated both mens rea and actus reus in order to be considered sane. Mens rea, which translates as "guilty mind," indicates that the individual had free will and some intent to cause harm at the time of the crime. The voluntary commission of an unlawful act is referred to as actus reus. The insanity defence admits that, while an unlawful act occurred, the individual lacked mens rea. The defence team bears the burden of proving that a defendant is insane. Ford v. Wainwright is a notable case involving this type of assessment, in which it was decided that forensic psychologists must be appointed to assess an inmate's competency to be executed in death penalty cases.

The legal system recognises a number of definitions of insanity. According to the M'Naghten/McNaugton rule (1843), insanity is defined as an individual not understanding the nature and quality of his or her actions or that these acts were wrong due to a mental disease or defect. This is also known as a cognitive capacity test. Meanwhile, the Durham Test (established in Durham v. United States, 1954) states that an individual can be declared insane if their actions were caused by a mental disorder. Because of the ambiguity of this description, this definition is only applicable in one state (NH). The Brawner Rule (U.S. v. Brawner, 1972), also known as the American Law Institute Standard, is the final definition recognised by the courts. According to this definition, an individual is considered insane if they are unable to recognise the wrongfulness of an act and are unable to conform their behaviour to the dictates of the law due to a mental disease or defect.

Evaluating insanity entails using crime scene analysis to determine the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime, making a diagnosis, interviewing the defendant and any other relevant witnesses, and verifying the defendant's impressions. The difficulties associated with this type of assessment include defendant malingering, determining the defendant's previous mental state, the possibility that different experts will reach different conclusions depending on the assessment method used, and the fact that society is very prone to labelling any psychological disorder as insane (though few actually fall into this category; insanity primarily involves psychotic disorders).

Risk assessment

Risk assessment determines how dangerous an individual is/could be, as well as the likelihood of re-offending after release, also known as recidivism. Recidivism is typically associated with violent or sex offending behaviour. Risk assessments, which affect an inmate's chances of receiving parole and/or being released from prison, use two general methods. The clinical prediction method predicts risk by using clinical judgement and experience, whereas the actuarial prediction method predicts risk by using a research-based formula. The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORGA) are two specific risk assessment methods developed by Quinsey, Harris, Rice, and Cormier in 1998.

Other types of evaluations

While insanity and competency assessments are two of the most common types of criminal assessments used in the legal system, there are several others. Assessments for death penalty cases, assessments for child sexual abuse, assessments for child custody or divorce cases, and civil court assessments are just a few examples.

Distinction between forensic and therapeutic evaluation

The interactions and ethical responsibilities of a forensic psychologist with a client differ greatly from those of a clinical psychologist with a client.

Scope- Rather than the broad range of issues addressed by a psychologist in a clinical setting, a forensic psychologist focuses on a narrowly defined range of nonclinical events or interactions.
Importance of client's perspective. - A clinician prioritises understanding the client's unique point of view, whereas a forensic psychologist prioritises accuracy over the client's viewpoint.
Voluntariness - A psychologist usually works with a willing client in a clinical setting. A forensic psychologist evaluates clients at the request of a judge or an attorney.
Autonomy - Voluntary clients have more leeway and autonomy when it comes to the assessment's objectives. Any evaluation will usually take their concerns into account. A forensic examination's objectives are limited by the applicable statutes or common law elements that pertain to the legal issue at hand.
Threats to validity - Although unconscious distortion may occur while the client and therapist work toward a common goal, intentional and conscious distortion is much more likely in the forensic context.
Relationship and dynamics - Although therapeutic interactions work toward the development of a trusting, empathic therapeutic alliance, a forensic psychologist may not ethically nurture the client or act in a "helping" role because the forensic evaluator has divided loyalties and there are significant limits to the confidentiality he can guarantee the client. In the adversary context of a legal setting, a forensic evaluator must always be aware of manipulation. These concerns necessitate an emotional distance that is not typical of a therapeutic interaction.
Pace and setting - In contrast to therapeutic interactions, which can be guided by a variety of factors, the forensic setting, with its court schedules, limited resources, and other external factors, places significant time constraints on the evaluation with no opportunities for reevaluation. The importance of accuracy and the finality of legal dispositions is stressed by the forensic examiner.

Ethics in forensic psychology

The APA's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology outline the ethical recommendations and expectations for forensic psychology specifically. These guidelines emphasise the importance of forensic psychologists valuing integrity, impartiality, and fairness, as well as avoiding conflicts of interest whenever possible. Conflicts of interest can arise when a psychologist is working as a consultant to one side or the other in a court case, when the psychologist is required to testify or evaluate something that contradicts their own beliefs or values, or when a psychologist is faced with the decision of whether to play the role of an individual's evaluator or treatment provider in a case. This final conflict of interest relates to the ethical guidelines for having multiple client relationships. In addition, as a matter of ethics, forensic psychologists are expected to provide a certain amount of reduced fee or pro bono services to individuals who would otherwise be unable to afford hiring a psychologist for a court case. Other ethical guidelines include obtaining informed consent from clients before communicating information about their treatment or evaluations, respecting and acknowledging clients' privacy/confidentiality/privilege, remaining impartial and objective during a trial, and weighing the moral and ethical costs of complying with any court orders that may conflict with professional standards.

Ethical concerns such as discrimination, bias, or lying about a fact simply because the forensic psychologist was paid. Incidents in which these psychologists knowingly jeopardised the case and presented a false narrative did not end well for them. When it comes to discrimination, someone may assume that the suspect committed the crime because of their skin colour based on a single glance. This is related to bias because they may ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs. It is critical to keep an open mind and consider both sides of the argument.