By the time Jennifer Bush was eight years old, she had


been hospitalized over 200 times and had undergone
more than 40 medical procedures. She had suffered a
weakened immune system, digestive issues, and
seizures. As a result of her medical issues, her
appendix, gallbladder, and some of her small intestine
had been removed.
 
Nurses became suspicious because young Jennifer
always seemed to get worse after visits with her
mother. One nurse even reported seeing Kathy
Bush inject her daughter in the mouth with a syringe.
Officials began an investigation of Kathy but were
unable to gather enough evidence against her. In 1999,
Kathy was convicted of aggravated child abuse. She
served three years of a five-year sentence. She was
also forbidden from having contact with her daughter.

In 2005, when Jennifer was 18, the ban was lifted at her request,
and she was permitted to see her mother again. Jennifer now says

that she doesn’t believe that her mother abused her. Jennifer’s
family maintains that her health had already started to improve
before she was taken from their care.

In a written statement to the Sun Sentinel in early 2015, Jennifer

wrote:

The 10 years I spent in foster care were traumatic, and I had some
devastating things happen to me. [ . . . ] Today, I can proudly say
my family is extremely close knit. We have flourished despite the
devastating separation. The bond I had with my brothers, prior to being
removed from my family, is something that never changed. My
relationship with them helped carry me through my years in foster care.
My parents and I have picked up from where we left off, and have a very
close and loving relationship.
 Forensic Psychology

 The application of Psychology to lawmaking, law
enforcement, the examination of the witnesses, and
the treatment of the criminals
 Terminology

Juvenile ( of or relating to young people who have
committed crimes)

Malingering ( to pretend to be sick or injured in order

to avoid doing work)

Prejudice (a feeling of like or dislike for someone or

something especially when it is not reasonable or
logical)
Specified Areas of Work

 Divorce and child custody mediation
 Determination of criminal responsibility and
competency to stand trial
 Expert opinion/testimony on questions of
psychological nature
 Psychological testing and evaluation
 Jury selection and case strategy
 Assessing receptiveness and response to treatment
 
 Assessment of dangerousness (e.g. sexual predator
laws)
 Selection of placement of police offices, security and
military personnel
 Explaining the effects of psychological condition and
illness
 Consulting with managers to develop work place
safety and violence debriefing procedures
 
 Designing and conducting treatment programs for
offenders
 Conducting research on treatment effectiveness
 Preparing profiles of various types of offenders (e.g.
sexual offenders, arsonists, etc)
 Teaching courses or providing professional
development workshops on forensic topics
 Domains of Forensic
Psychology

 The Family Court
 The Civil Court
 The Criminal Court
 Domains of Forensic
Psychology

 The Family Court
- Consisted of assessment and evaluation like:
a. Child Custody Evaluation
b. Adoption Readiness Evaluation
c. Development of Family Reunification Plans
d. Evaluations to assess termination of Parental Rights
 Domains of Forensic
Psychology

 The Civil Court
- Consisted of assessment and evaluation like:
a. Personal Injury Evaluation
b. Second Opinion Evaluation
c. Assessment of Emotional Factors in Sexual
Harrassment and Discrimination
d. Workers’ Compensation Evaluation
e. Psychological Autopsies
 Domains of Forensic
Psychology

 The Criminal Court
a. The Beginning – criminal investigation (criminal
profiler)
b. The Court System/Criminal Court (evaluation of
juveniles accused of criminal acts
c. Psychological Evaluation for Criminal Court
 Interplay Between
Psychology and the Law

The following are some questions that may call for the
help of Psychologists:
1. Question of Welfare of a child regarding his/her
custody (P.D. 603, Art. 8)
2. Question of Psychological Incapacity to comply
with marital obligations (E.O. 209, Art. 36)
3. Question of Psychological Capability to care for
Children (R.A. 8552, Art. III, Sec.7)
 Malingering &
Deception Evaluations

 Forensic psychologists are frequently asked to assist the courts
in answering a psycholegal question. Such forensic
psychological assessment is subject to malingering or
deception. Examinees may attempt to either fake good or fake
bad in both the interview and testing. The forensic psychologist
must always be wary of the examinee’s attempt to malinger due
to the secondary gain present in most forensic assessments. For
example, an individual charged with a crime may feign mental
illness to avoid going to trial, or may fake or exaggerate
symptoms in order to attempt to be found not criminally
responsible and therefore, not guilty by reason of insanity
(NGRI). Another instance in which an individual may attempt
to feign mental illness is the evaluation of psychological
damages in a personal injury lawsuit.
 Competency to Stand
Trial or Fitness to Stand Trial

 requires that a defendant understands the nature and
purpose of the legal proceedings against him and be able
to effectively cooperate with counsel in his defense. To
understand the proceedings, a defendant must be able to
comprehend the charges against him and the penalties if
convicted. He must also have some level of
understanding of courtroom procedure and the functions
of those who participate in it. To cooperate with counsel,
he must be able to plan a legal strategy, be able to recall
and relate pertinent facts and events, including his
motives and actions at the time of the offense, and be able
to testify in his behalf and to challenge prosecution
witnesses.
 Can You Fake Mental
Illness?

How forensic psychologists can tell whether someone is
malingering.
 The first step is to do a thorough review of the
suspect’s history. Mental illness doesn’t develop
overnight, so it’s important to know if the person has
been hospitalized or treated for similar symptoms.
The investigators also review the crime-scene report.
If the suspect has hidden the weapon, washed off his
fingerprints, or taken other steps to elude the police,
it’s a sign of clear thinking—not mental illness.
 
 Get Slate in your inbox.
 Then come one or more long, rambling interviews—the longer
the better, because after a few hours, some suspects begin to
lose track of their symptoms or grow weary of the con. Phillip J.
Resnick, professor of psychiatry at Case Western Reserve
University, says he asks the suspect to talk at length about his
history before saying a word about the crime, to lessen the
chance of “retrofitting” a pattern of alleged illness to the deed.
He and his colleagues listen carefully for signs of particular
mental illnesses.
 “Most malingerers don’t read the psychological literature,” says
Tali Walters, a Boston forensic psychologist, so they present a
Hollywood version of how a crazy person acts.
 
 For example, some suspects claim to hear voices in their
head that they’re powerless to resist, a commonly
dramatized depiction of schizophrenia. Unlike what we
see in the movies, most auditory hallucinations are
benign; they seem to originate outside the head (not
inside), and rarely come from aliens or other non-human
beings. Only a small percentage are “command
hallucinations,” and even fewer command a violent act.
Furthermore, genuine schizophrenics find strategies to
ignore these voices, or even make peace with them. They
learn that certain activities, such as exercise, mute the
voices; while others, such as watching TV, encourage
them—the “voice” can’t seem to resist commenting on
what it sees.
 
 At some point the examiner leads the discussion to
the crime, which sets another trip-wire for deceivers.
No matter how delusional the suspect claims to be,
the crime scene must fit the hallucinations he
describes. It’s hard to believe a suspect who says he
was slashing wildly with a kitchen knife against an
army of aliens when he actually left a single stab
wound in his mother’s chest. Another clue is a cover
story that conveniently mixes delusion and reality.
 
 There are also standardized tests that trip up
malingerers. A preliminary, 10-minute test, called M-
FAST (Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms
Test), presents a series 25 questions that intermix
phony and real symptoms. It’s almost impossible to
pick the right combinations if you’re not mentally ill
or a highly trained forensic psychologist. A more
thorough series of questions, called SIRS (Structured
Interview of Reported Symptoms) takes about an
hour.
 Assessment of Risk

 Another responsibility that the forensic psychologist
has is to assist the judge in recommending an
appropriate sentence if the defendant is found
guilty.
Appropriate Sentencing

 This process has had a great influence in the
understanding of abnormal psychology over the
years. For example, thanks in large part to forensic
studies, we now know that individuals who commit
violence against animals as children often go on to be
violent towards humans as adults. We also know
that people who engage in rape or sexuality-related
crimes have a higher tendency to repeat.
 The Risk of Prejudice

 The role of the forensic psychologist can be a difficult
one. There is a great deal of responsibility involved
in determining the future of another individual,
especially when one has the power to send that
individual to a lifetime of imprisonment, or even to
his or her death. Because of that, it's a profession that
undergoes a lot of scrutiny and criticism.

https://www.psychologistworld.com/issues/forensic-
psychology.php
 Ethics

 All psychologists are guided by the Ethical Principles and
Code of Conduct, published by the American
Psychological Association and recently revised in 2002.
The ethical practice of forensic psychology is also
informed by the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic
Psychologistspublished in 1991. Psychologists practicing
forensic psychology can use these two documents to help
clarify ethical questions. Nevertheless, the possibility of
ethical dilemmas should be a constant concern for
forensic psychologists. The very nature of the practice of
psychology within the legal arena can lead to ethical
conflicts.
 
 Weissman and DeBow (2003) provide a
comprehensive list of impediments to the ethical
practice of psychology. This list includes the
following obstacles:
 
 Ignorance of specialized psycholegal knowledge.

 Advocacy for a client or advocacy for a particular agenda

as opposed to remaining neutral and objective.
 Lack of specialized forensic training.

 Assuming that the attorney will provide the expert with

the necessary legal, ethical, and professional information.

 Assuming that different jurisdictions are similar in laws

and how the laws are implemented.
 
 Not appreciating the different levels for the burden of
proof between the disciplines and within the legal system.
 Economic concerns – psychologists are prohibited from
working on a contingency-fee basis and may feel that
their services will not be used if they do not perform as
the hiring attorney requests.
 Entering into multiple relationships, such as expert
witness and consultant or expert witness and therapist.

 Failure to understand the unique issues associated with

confidentiality and privilege communications in forensic
work.
 
 Failure to appreciate the unique role assessment
plays in forensic settings and using inappropriate
tests.
 Inadequate documentation and failing to recognize
the need for meticulous notes.

 Failure to use all appropriate sources of information

expected in a forensic evaluation, such as interviews
with third parties.
 
 Forensic psychologists working as experts with attorneys
need to address in the form of a written contract potential
conflicts of interest and ethical conflicts at the beginning
of the business relationship. Lawyers retaining forensic
psychologists as expert witnesses may expect a partisan
loyalty from their expert. Experts often feel trapped,
forced to choose between ethical, impartial testimony and
partisan advocacy. Experts who do not conform to the
adversarial needs of the retaining lawyer fear the loss of
future income and risk gaining a reputation in the legal
community as being uncooperative. However, experts
who misrepresent the facts, for whatever reason, may face
ethical and legal sanctions.