Forensic Psychology

The what, who, how and when of using psychological

science to help answer legal questions
 This is Dr. Jonathan
Crane
• Is a professor of psychology.
• Exploits people's fears
• Worked with the mafia to
experiment on the people of
Gotham City
• Would testify that criminals in the
police's custody being prosecuted
were 'insane' and deserved
treatment in the mental
hospital, Arkham Assylum—as per
his arrangement with the local mob.
• Bad doctor. Don't be like Dr Crane.
So is forensic psychology only about dealing
with criminals and outlaws?
Not
exclusively.
• Forensic: pertaining to
courts of law. Anything
that falls beneath the
jurisdiction of justice is
considered forensic.
Criminal justice is part
of it.
Forensic psychology put in perspective;
Forensic Psychology—The What:
It is the application of psychology's
methods, theories and procedures to
the legal system—not restricted to
the criminal sector. It is employed
for any issues related to civil ,
criminal, and administrative justice,
to solve problems facing judges,
attorneys, and the police.
 • Clients range from children to adults—it is
anyone involved in the justice system. Victim or
Forensic violator.
Psychology • Institutions as well; government agencies,
—The Who: hospitals and clinics, universities, correctional
facilities, corporations all may be the client or
the object of testimony.
 Forensic Psychology—The When:

Psychological Release from Predicting Rights of a

Child custody damage from involuntary dangerousness mentally
negligence confinement disabled person

Competency to Determination Compensation Eyewitness

stand trial of disability for claims testimony Jury Selection
Social Security accuracy

Criminal Advice to
Profiling attorneys
History
• 1901, Willian Stern studying the
correctness of recollection
• 1908, Hugo von Munsterberg's publication
of On The Witness Stand
• Criticized for his exaggeration of the
importance of psychology's
contributions
• The Brown v. Board of
Educators desegregation case
• 1962, Judge Bazelon: "qualified
psychologists could testify in court as
experts on mental disorders".
 Psychology was used mostly for Consultants on juror behavior-
critique of doctrine and decisions pertaining manner

Psychology's 1930s 1970s-1980s

applications
in time:
1950s

Serving as expert witnesses

Training and Qualifications

Students should be familiar

Possess an orientation to
with legal concepts,
the courtroom and its
assessment and relevant
proceedings.
literature.

Introduction to the Gain expertise in law so

field, topical seminars in that testimony, consultation
FP, and field-placement in and research are well-
forensics. informed.
 Ethics and Standards

Completeness and accuracy of in Technical and scientific accuracy and Impartiality.

stating personal qualifications honesty in reports and testimony
 Financial Arrangements
Standards
• The fee is not dependent on the outcome of
the case.
• Fee structure and reimbursement is
established during the initial consultation and
is written by two parties—all
misunderstandings are to be resolved before
proceeding to the case.
• Payment is before the psychologist testifies.
• Pro-bono publico cases.
 • The Expert Witness
• Criminal Cases
Forensic • Rights of Patients
Psychology— • Predicting Dangerousness
The How: • Psychological Treatment
• Consultation
• Research

This P hoto by Unknown author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC.

Duties of a Forensic
Psychologist
• The growth of forensic
psychology has thrust the
psychologist into many
different roles. We focus on
seven such roles, beginning
with the forensic
psychologist as expert
witness.
1- The Expert
Witness

This Photo by Unknown author is licensed under CC BY-NC.

The basic difference between a lay witness and an
expert witness is that the former may testify only to
events witnessed while the latter may offer
opinions and inferences. This goes beyond merely
stating a conclusion. The expert witness must help
the court understand and evaluate evidence or
determine a fact at issue.
Qualifications

Initially, the court will decide whether the expert witness may in fact claim
expert status. Often, in the case of physicians, psychologists, or psychiatrists,
a license is taken as evidence of competence.

But if opposing counsel objects to the witness’s claim to be an expert,

further evidence will typically be presented regarding competence.
Ultimately, it is up to the judge to decide.
Qualifications

education, formal relevant experience, research and knowledge and use of special tests and
training, and including positions publications. application of scientific measurements.
subsequent learning. held. principles.
In 1993, following Daubert v. Merrell Dow, the standard was changed from “general
acceptance” in the relevant scientific community to one of “relevance and validity”
determined by the trial judge. In other words, the burden now falls on the judge to
determine what expert evidence is admissible.
Although this new standard was intended to be more flexible, in many cases
Daubert has resulted in more restrictive criteria for the admissibility of expert
testimony where it has been used to exclude various kinds of social science
evidence as “not scientific enough,” even though it would have been previously
admissable.
 ■ Use psychometrically adequate data-
Given the Daubert gathering instruments.
ruling, Rotgers
and Barrett (1996)
■ Draw conclusions using scientifically validated
have offered the theoretical positions.
following
guidelines to
■ Weigh and qualify testimony based on the
assist clinical adequacy of theory and empirical research
psychologists who regarding the question being addressed.
testify as expert
■ Be prepared to defend the scientific status of
witnesses: your data-gathering methods during the
process of qualification as an expert witness.
2- Criminal Cases

This Photo by Unknown author is licensed under CC BY-ND.

The Insanity Plea
• If the accused is judged to have been sane at the
time of the alleged crime, then conviction will
bring with it imprisonment, fines, or probation.
• But the individual adjudged insane at the time of
the alleged crime will, if convicted, be regarded as
not responsible and thereby held for treatment
rather than punishment. However, despite
popular conceptions to the contrary, the insanity
plea is seldom successful The defendant is
typically assumed to be responsible.

This Photo by Unknown author is licensed under CC BY.

It should be noted that
insanity is a legal term, Therefore, to behave
not a medical, irrationally is evidence
psychiatric, or of insanity. But most
psychological term. The psychologists would not
legal system assumes agree that all normal
that people make behavior is rationally
premeditated and chosen.
rational choices.
So, then, how is
it decided that
the accused was
insane?
 1) The oldest standard is the M’Naghten rule. It states that
Although a successful insanity defense must prove that the person
committed the unlawful act while “under a defect of

standards vary reason, a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature of
the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not
know what he was doing was wrong.”
from state to 2) A second standard is the Durham standard. This standard
state, one of was developed because of the perception that
the M’Naghten rule was in need of revision. The Durham

three standard states that “an accused is not

criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of
mental disease or mental defect.” However, many judge and
standards lawyers expressed dissatisfaction with this new standard
because, in their view, the expert testimony of mental
prevails: health professionals weighed too heavily in the decision.
3) The third standard is that the defendant is not
responsible for a criminal act if it was the result of a
mental disease or defect that the capacity to
appreciate the criminality of the act or to conform
to the law was lacking. This is the so-called ALI
standard of the American Law Institute. It's
viewed as the most liberal because criminal
responsibility can be excused if mental illness
causes a lack of substantial capacity to understand
what one is doing (a cognitive deficit) or an inability
to control one’s behavior (a volitional deficit).
 The psychologist must address whether the person has a mental
disorder or defect and what the person’s mental status was at
the time of the alleged crime.

Evaluating
for criminal In the process, the psychologist will assess many factors,

insanity
including:
-the defendant’s history and that of the defendant’s family
-intellectual status
-neuropsychological factors
-competency to stand trial
-reading skills
-personality
-measures of faking or malingering.
 Competency to Stand Trial.
• The issue is the defendant’s state of mind at the time
of the trial, not when the offense was allegedly
committed. A defendant may have been insane when
the crime was committed but later be competent to
stand trial. The reverse is also possible. In fact, issues
of competency to stand trial are raised much more
often than the insanity defense.
• Competency to stand trial was defined as “the present
ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable
degree of rational understanding and whether he has
a rational as well as factual understanding of the
proceedings against him.” Thus, in contrast to the
assessment of insanity, the assessment of competency
to stand trial focuses on present mental state.
• In answering questions of competency, three basic issues are
addressed:
1. Can the person appreciate the nature of the charges, and can that
person report factually on his or her behavior at the time of the
alleged crime?
2. Can the person cooperate in a reasonable way with counsel?
3. Can the person appreciate the proceedings of the court?
3-Rights of Patients
Patient Rights
• It depends mainly on if the patient is
• Involuntary hospitalized
Have constitutional right to
individualized treatment that offers
them a realistic chance for “cure” or
least improvement.
• Voluntary hospitalized
The courts have been less attentive to
their rights because it's assumed they
can leave hospital if they choose.
Additional rights:
• Physical environment (dayrooms,
lavatories), personal clothing, personal
activities.
• Involuntary labor: prohibited, but when
labor is undertaken voluntary then
appropriate wages must be paid.
• Visits: institutional personnel controlling
it.
 Complex issue:
The right to refuse treatment
or medication.
Not every involuntary hospitalized patient is mentally
incompetent and these patients have the right to decide their
own fate.
But what about the patients who are incompetent?
 Forcible medication
The Supreme Court ruled that :
1. A mentally ill prisoner could not be medicated
without patients consent unless there was a consensus of
professional opinion that safety would otherwise be
compromised.
2. Individual could be forcibly medicated in an attempt to
make him competent to stand trial .
4-Predicting
Dangerousness
 ‘Therapists have a duty to protect potential
victims from their patients’ violent behavior.’
We all have to do that.
Violent But how accurately can psychologists or
Behaviour anyone else predict dangerous behavior?

Prediction Although a history of violence is more

common among those with mental disorder
diagnoses, 90% of those with mental illness
have no history of violence.
 • A large percentage of those predicted to
Violent acts become violent do not do so. Many people seem
willing to sacrifice many to protect society from
are highly one.
• Why may people tend to see danger
when none exists?
over • It's probably due to the television program or
news story that describe how a mental patient
predicted. was released only to kill someone
or doing sth like that.

Difficult though such prediction
are, psychologists are required
to give their evaluation by the
criminal justice system.
Evaluations can range from
predicting sexual violence, child
abuse and work place violence
to predicting suicidal or
homicidal behavior.
These evaluations are used for many
decisions, ranging from:
• holding a prisoner without bail
• granting work-release status to
hospitalized defendants,
• invoking special sentencing options
for violent offenders, just to name a
few
5-Psychological treatment
Some experts believe that sometimes
punishment is under the label of
“treatment” or perhaps “behavior
modification.”
Therapy may focus on restoring an
incompetent person to a state of mental
competence.
Therapy may be undertaken to provide
emotional support for one who faces
imprisonment.
The focus is often on personality
problems, sexual behavior, and
aggressiveness.
One of the major problems for the forensic clinician is the knowledge
that testimony may be required later in court. What the court wants,
what the client’s attorney will permit, what is best for the client, and
what the clinician sees as most desirable may conflict and lead to
many problems.
So the treatment problems may be difficult and poignant
6- Consultation
Another common activity of forensic
psychologists is consultation. This is
represented in several aspects:

➢ Jury Selection: A consulting psychologist

may work with attorneys in the process of
jury selection.
➢ Jury Shadowing: Here, the jury consultant
hires analogous jurors (i.e., individuals
similar to those actually serving on the
jury) and monitors their reactions to the
testimony as it is presented at the trial.
➢ Witness preparation: The idea of
witness preparation is to help
witnesses present their testimony
better without changing the facts
to which their testimony is
directed.
➢Convincing the Jury: Consultants
can assist attorneys in predicting
how jurors will respond to certain
kinds of evidence or methods of
presentation.
7-Research and Forensic
Psychology
Research and Forensic Psychology:

The broad definition of forensic psychology

emphasizes the application of research and
experimentation in other areas of psychology
(e.g., cognitive psychology, social psychology) to
the legal field. This would include applying
results from studies in areas such as cognitive
psychology to legal questions.
For example, research on the genetic
components of schizophrenia may be very
important in a mental competency hearing.
Several research areas have become particularly
identified with forensic psychology, including
Eyewitness Testimony and Jury Behavior.

This Photo by Unknown author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC.

Eyewitness Testimony:
The Subcommittee made the following recommendations and, in this
way, it is hoped that eyewitness identification errors will be reduced
and from these recommendations:
✓ The person who conducts the lineup or photo-spread in the case
should not know the identity of the suspect.
✓Eyewitnesses should be told that a suspect in the case may or may
not be in the lineup or photo-spread and that the person conducting
the lineup or photo-spread does not know which person (if any) is the
suspect in the case.
✓The suspect in a lineup or a photo-spread should not stand out
(in appearance or dress) as being different from the others.
✓The eyewitness’s confidence in the identification should be
assessed at the time of the identification and prior to any feedback.
Jury Behavior:
The better we understand the conditions that affect how juries think and reach decisions, the
better our judicial system will be.
A great deal of research has been done on just how jurors make sense out of evidence and process
information, how they respond to instructions from the bench, and how they react to certain kinds
of arguments.
 ‫شكراً ‪.‬وبس‬
‫لما تخلص واجب من اصل مليون‬

‫رهف الدويك‬ ‫ميس نجار‬

‫امنه شاهين‬ ‫اكرام صفا‬