Final Exam Forensic Psych

Two components of risk assessment

1. Identify Risk Factors

2. Recommend interventions, treatment or conditions

When is risk assessment used?

Child protection, bail hearings, sentencing, parole

Unstructured Clinical Judgement

Based on professional discretion. No rules, highly subjective, varies between clinicians

Actuarial Prediction

Mechanical, Tool-based. Based on static, measurable risk factors

Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ)

Combines structure with discretion. Based on research-informed factors, guided decision-making

Static risk factors

Does NOT change over time (criminal history, early abuse)

Dynamic Risk Factors

CAN change with time/intervention (substance abuse, attitudes)

Historical Risk Factors

Past events (prior violence)

Clinical Risk Factor

Personaility/Traits (impulsivity)

Contextual Risk Factors

Environmental (access to a weapon)

Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised

Developed by Robert Hare, 20-item semi-structured interview.

Score ranges from 0-40

Two factors for the PCL-R

1. Interpersonal/Affective - superifical charm, lack of empathy

2. Lifestyle/Antisocial - Impulsivity, poor behaviour control

Psychopathy vs APD

All psychopaths meet APD criteria but not all APD individuals are psychopaths

10-25% prevalence for Psychopaths

80% prevalence for APD

Bias Risk

Defense Vs Prosecution scores differ

Edens et al (2005)

Mock jurors more likely to give death penatly to psychopathic defendants

Instrumental

Goal-directed, planned

Reactive

Implusive, emotional

Woodworth and Porter (2002)

93% of high scores —> instrumental homicide

Psychopaths in the community

• more common in med

• Rare (0.6% general population)

Corporate Psychopaths

good communication, bad leadership. Cause conflict/ manipulate

Recidivism

More likely to reoffend (violent and sexual offences)

Rice et al (1992)

Treated psychopaths had higher violent recidivism

Olver and Wong (2006)

Treatment reduces recidivism in psychopathic sex offenders

Caldwell et al (2006)

Youth psychopaths respond better to treatment than adults

Ethical Concerns with Youth Psychopaths

Labels affect legal outcomes and self-identity

Stability of traits with youth psychopaths

Traits not stable in adolescence

Treatment effectiveness in youth psychopaths

Youth respond better than adults

Cognitive (attention)

Difficulty shifting attention away from goal-relevant cues

Affective (emotional deficit)

Amygdala dysfunction; less emotion/emotional learning

R v. Swain

Insanity defense precedent — helps understand forensic psych

R v. Oickle

Interrogation techniques and voluntariness of confession

Steblay et al (meta-analyses)

Inadmissible evidence

Blais et al (meta-analyses)

Psychopathy and violence type = no clear preference

Summary offences

• Least serious

• Judge alone, no jury

• <6 months or $2000 fine

Indictable offence

• most serious

• Judge or judge + jury

Hybrid offences

• Crown decides if treated as summary or indictable

Jury Basics

• 12 Jurors

• Unanimously agree on a verdict

• Apply the law to admissible evidence to render innocent or guilty

Jury selection - out of court

Jury list from electoral rolls

Eligibility: Canadian, 18+, resident of crime jurisdiction

Ontario Exclusions: Police officer, lawyers

Jury selection - in court

Summons: Legal notice to appear

Venire: group of potential jurors

Dismissals: health issues or conflict of interest

Peremptory challenge

No reason required

Recently eliminated

Challenge for cause

Must show realistic potential of bias

R v Stanley

• Gerald stanley acquitted of killing Colten Boushie

• All indigenous jurors excluded via peremptory challenges

  Outcome: all white jury — sparked outrage

Representativeness

Jury reflects community demographics (though rarely fully)

Impartiality

Jurors must ignore biases and rule based only of evidence

R v Sherratt (1991)

Jury must be representative + impartial

R v Nepoose (1992)

Challenge successful: too few women on panel

Indigenous underrepresentation

Language barriers, transportation issues, cultural distrust

Inadmissible evidence

Jurors cant “un-hear” evidence. (rebound effects, mental overload)

Objections:

Overruled —> admitted

Sustained —> jury told to disregard

Pretial Publicity (PTP)

Often inadmissible, but affects jurors

Strong link between negative PTP and guilty verdicts

Ruva and McEvoy (2008)

Positive PTP —>fewer guilty verdicts

Negative PTP —> more guilty verdicts

Remedies to Bias

Change of Venue

Publication Bans

Careful Juror questioning

Studying juries - Simulations

Mock trials with manipulated stimuli

Studying juriespost-trial Interviews

After real trials, ask jurors

Studying juries - Archival studies

Analyze court records

Studying Juries - Field Studies

Observe real jury behaviour

Mathematical Model

Jurors assign weight to evidence and make verdict via calculations

Story Model

Jurors create a narrative using evidence; verdict fits story that best “makes sense”

Strength of Evidence

strongest predictors of verdict

Weak evidence —> prejudice or extra-legal factors play a role

Extra-legal factors

Race, Attractiveness, Gender

Black Sheep Effect

Strong evidence —> ingroup punished more

Weak Evidence —> ingroup more lenient

Victim Race effect

Jurors more punitive when victim is white

Black victims = higher conviction

CSI effect

Jurors wrongfully acquit due to lack of CSI-style evidence

Perceived Realism

People who believe CSI is realistic = more likely to convict

Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka's key issues

Inadmissible confessions, plea deals, video evidence, public outrage

Sexual Assault in Canada

2021: 34,242 police reported sexual assaults

94% of victims dont report — 1 million assaults per year

Victims stats with sexual assaults

33% of women — 92% of victims are women

Indigenous women and LGBTQ+ are 3x more likely

Trans individuals = highest rates

Legal definition — Level 1

Basic sexual assault (most common)

Legal definition—Level 2

Sexual assault with a weapon or bodily harm (max 14 years)

Legal definition — Level 3

Aggravated Sexual assault (life threatening)

Effect on victims

Physical, psychological, rape trauma syndrome

Voyeurs

Gain sexual arousal from watching

Exhibitionists

Expose themselves for gratification

Rapists

Assualt aged 16+

Pedophiles

Sexual interest = children

Intrafamilial Child Molester

Within family

Extra-Familial Child Molester

Outside Family

Opportunistic Rapist

Impulsive, Situational, Low violence

Pervasively Angry Rapist

Aggressive, angry at everyone

Vindictive Rapist

Anger towards women, degrading

Sexual Rapist

Motivated by sexual fantasies

Sadistic Rapist

Sexual pleasure from victim pain

Groths Typology

Anger Rapist (50%), Power Rapist (45%), Sadistic Rapist (5%)

Fixated Child molester

Lifelong attraction to children, premeditated, no remorse

Regressed Child Molester

Adult-Oriented but abuses during stress, may feel remorse

Trader

Distributes or collects child pornography

Traveller

Seeks in person contact

Trader-Traveller

Both combined

Female sex offenders

Victims are often males or their own children.

2-5% of incarcerated sex offenders

12% of self-reported offences

Teacher/Lover

Male adolescent victims , sees relationship as nurturing

Male-Coerced

Partner pressured them into abuse, often their daughter

Male Accompanied

Co-offender, willingly participates

Predisposed

History of abuse, initiates alone, often violent

Precondition Model (Finkelhor, 1994)

1. motivation to abuse

2. Lack of internal inhibitions

3. Overcome external inhibitors

4. Overcome childs resistance

Integrated Model (Marshal and Barbaree, 1990)

Combo of biological, situational, developmental factors

Sex offenders often have traumatic childhoods

Beck et al (2012)

GTA players showed higher rape myth acceptance than baseball players

Cognitive restructuring

Challenge Justifications

Empathy Training

Survivor accounts, reflection

Aversion Therapy

Pairing negative stimuli

Pharmacological

Reduce deviant arousal

Hansons and Morton-Bourgon (2004)

13.5% recidivism (95 studies)