Forensic Psychology Exam 3

Psychologist's roles in insanity cases

1. Assessment of mental status

2. testifying as an expert witness

Assessment of mental status

psychological assessment

Mental screening Evaluation

Rogers Criminal responsibility assessment scales (R-CRAS)

Mental Screening Evaluation (MSE)

clinician-completed questionnaire

To "screen out" those defendants whose law-breaking actions clearly were not caused by a mental abnormality

Rogers Criminal Responsibility assessment scales (R-CRAS)

structured interview

measures the ALI definition of insanity via 25 quantifiable variables

Testifying as an expert witness

prosecution and defense may both have experts with conflicting testimony

the court may also appoint an expert

sometimes difficult to cross eaxaminations

Ultimate issue testimony

is it proper for an expert to express an opinion about whether the defendant was sane or insane at the time of the offense?

Psychologists are divided on this issue, insanity is a legal decision, so some argue that it should be the decision of the judge or jury.

Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984

modified federal law specifically to prohibit mental health experts from testifying about ultimate legal issues

federal rule of evidence 704(b)

"no expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of the defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or interference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state of condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of the defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone."

6th amendment

the right to a fair trial

14th amendment

the right to due process (life, liberty, property)

Trial competence

constitutional due process of law (fundamental fairness) requires that the defendant have opportunity for meaningful participation in the case.

If the defendant is mentally incapable of meaningful participation, the right to trial is an empty right.

Thus, trial of a defendant who is incompetent to stand trial violates the constitution

What is trial competence?

1. ability to rationally and effectively consult with one's attorney

2. Ability to understand the nature of the charges against them (their legal jeopardy)

3. ability to understand legal proceedings and participate in them in a meaningful manner

"dusky and drope" trial competence legal standard

defendant must have "sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."

dusky v. US 1960

defendant must also have the capacity "to assist in preparing his defense."

drope v. missouri 1975

How often does competency come up?

defense attorneys have concerns about their clients' competency to stand trial in about 10-15% of their cases

How many criminal defendants are referred for evaluation each year?

25,000

How many defendants referred actually are found incompetent?

10-15% found incompetent. That's about 1-2% of all defendants each year are found incompetent to stand trial.

Competence

competence applies at every stage in the criminal justice process, but is most often raised in pretrial hearings.

focus on present ability.

test is concerned with capacity, not willingness

incompetency is not equate with any particular diagnosis

a defendant can be found competent and still plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

Assessing competency

georgia court competency test (GCCT)

competency screening test (CST)

competency assessment instrument (CAI)

fitness interview test-revised (FIT-R)

competency assessment to stand trial for defendants w/mental retardation (CAST-MR)

macarthur competence assessment teol-criminal adjudication (MacCAT-CA)-> hypothetical criminal situations

Competency to plead guilty

must be "voluntarily and intelligently" entered

pleading guilty involves waiving several constitutional rights:

1. jury trial (6th amend.)

2. right to confront accusers (6th)

2. not to be a witness against one's self (5th)

Juvenile competence

the U.S. supreme court has ruled that juvenile courts have to process rights to juveniles as adults (in re Gault, 1967)

Competence to stand trial focuses on what cognitive abilities?

1. the ability to understand information about the trial process

2. the ability to reason with the information relevant to the situation

Psychologists' view on children competency

developmental psychology research indicates that these capacities are still developing in most children until the age of 14

Conditions that experts suggest mean a juvenile's competency should be evaluated

Age 12 or younger

prior diagnosis of or treatment for a mental illness or intellectual disability

"a borderline" or lower IQ or a learning disability

observations by others that suggest deficits in memory, attention, or interpretation of reality

Forensic evaluation

competency to stand trial (talk to attorney?)

insanity: has baseline illness, did they know what they did?, mens rea- did they understand wrongfulness of behavior

NGRI evaluation

The importance of a confession

the most damaging evidence that can be presented at the defendant's trial. juries almost always convict defendants who have confessed to committing a crime.

must consider the circumstances under which confessions are obtained. Must be "voluntary to be admissible"

Three types of false confessions

1. voluntary false confessions

2. coerced-compliant confessions

3. coerced-internalized confessions

voluntary false confessions

offered willingly

seeking publicity; generalized guilt; psychosis

coerced-compliant confessions

to escape further interrogation, gain a promised benefit, or avoid a threatened punishment

Paul Ingram case: The charges

sexual abuse, raping his own daughters, participating in hundreds of satanic cult rituals that included slaughtering 25 babies

Paul Ingram case: interrogation procedures

jailed for five months; interrogated 23 times

paul ingram case: ingram's response

initially denied any knowledge of claims

began to change from "I did not do it" to "I do not remember doing it"

paul ingram case: accuracy of his confession

responded to suggestions and confabulated details

ofshe believed it to be entirely false

paul ingram case: outcome

ingram pleaded guilty and had plea-bargained to six counts of 3rd degree rape.

He was sentenced to 20 years in prison, with the possibility of parole after 12 years

he was released after 15 years and there was never any physical evidence of the crime.

Coerced-internalized confessions

innocent suspects confess and come to believe that they are guilty

The goals of interrogation

1. get more information

2. induce a confession

successful interrogation process

1. first, make the suspect view his situation as hopeless and already determined

2. then, persuade that a confession will not worsen his future and may be to his advantage

Police can use manipulative tactics

minimization

maximization: "knowledge bluff", baiting questions

Rapport-building (good cop/bad cop)

Police are permitted to:

misrepresent the facts of the case

use techniques that take advantage of the emotions or beliefs of the suspect

fail to inform the suspect of some important fact that might make the suspect less likely to confess

Tactics that are not permitted during police interrogations

physical force, abuse, and torture

threats (even implicit ones) of harm or punishment

prolonged isolation

deprivation of food or sleep

promises of leniency

failure to notify him or her of their miranda rights

certain types of psychological influence

Important cases in voluntary vs. coerced confessions

Brown V. Mississippi (1936)

Bram V. U.S. (1897)- coercion is not just physical

Ashcraft V. Tennessee (1944)- sleep deprivation, prolonged interrogation

Reck V. Pate (1961)- food deprivation

Davis V. North Carolina (1966)- prolonged, isolated incarceration

Colorado V. Connelly (1986)

A suspect's mental limitations or psychological problems alone are not sufficient for concluding that a confession was involuntary.

Arizona V. Fulminante (1991)

The supreme court ruled that a coerced confession could be considered harmless error if there was sufficient other evidence to convict the defendant.

Miranda V. Arizona (1966)

Earnest Miranda confessed and was convicted of rape and kidnapping in 1963. He was sentenced to 20-30 years for each charge. He appealed his conviction all the way to the supreme court, which ruled (5-4) that his right against self-incrimination had been violated because he had not been advised of it.

Miranda Waiver

Before custodial interrogation, a defendant must be advised of miranda rights:

remain silent

statements can and will be used in court

right to counsel and to have them present for interrogation

Defendants who waive miranda rights

If the defendant waives miranda and makes an incriminating statement, the statement is not admissible unless the waiver was made "Knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently."

Evaluation for Miranda Waiver Admissibility

focus on defendant's mental state at the time of confession

review of any records of the interrogation (e.g., transcript, audiotape, videotape)

assessment of the defendant's susceptibility to coercion

assessment of the defendant's understanding of miranda rights as read or presented by interrogators

Malingering defintion

intentional and conscious fabrication and/or exaggeration of symptoms in order to obtain an external goal.

OR

intentional and conscious suppression of true ability in order to obtain an external goal.

Malingering evidenced by:

1. production of false symptoms

2. exaggeration of true symptoms

"partial malingering"

malingering and the presence of a genuine mental disorder are not mutually exclusive

3. suppression of true abilities

goals for malingering (secondary goal)

1. avoid undesired consequences: incarceration, wok, military duty

2. obtained desired goals: prescription meds, disability income

Malingering differs from:

factious disorder (fake illness for attention; primary goal)

Defensiveness- intentional and conscious denial or minimization of symptoms for some specified purpose

Conversion disorder: symptoms are not consciously produced

3 models for malingering

1. pathogenic

2. criminologic

3. adaptational

Pathogenic

asserts that people who malinger are mentally ill

rationale is that people who are truly ill attempt to gain control of symptoms by consciously producing them.

theory is espoused by few and is not supported by research

Criminological

asserts that people who malinger are bad

malingering is just one of many times of manipulative, antisocial, and deceitful behaviors displayed by antisocial persons

this is the theory that seems to underlie the DSM's definition of malingering

Little support exists for this explanation conceptually or empirically

theory is not espoused by most experts

theory is commonly presumed by laypersons and clinicians without training regarding malingering

DSM says malingering should be suspected if:

medico-legal context of presentation (e.g., forensic evaluation)

marked discrepancy between claimed distress and objective findings

lack of cooperation with diagnostic evaluation or with prescribed treatment regimen

presence of antisocial personality disorder

Adaptational

asserts that people who malinger are trying to cope with difficult situations

suggests that malingering is more likely when:

the context of the evaluation is perceived as adversarial

the stakes of the evaluation for the examinee are high

there is an absence of viable alternative explanations for exaggerated/feigned symptoms

"malingering is understandable although not necessarily defensible."

Support for adaptational model

there is some empirical support for this model

rates of malingering are higher in adversarial contexts, such as forensic evaluations

experts have embraced this model in recent years

this it the only good, objective model

Prevalence of malingering

prevalence is very difficult to determine, not all malingers are caught.

When evaluating malingering tests, two elements

1. probability, if just guessing should get around 50%

2. norms, what is the average

Frequency of malingers

Personal Injury 20-30%

Disability Claimants 19-20%

Medical Examinations (CFS, chronic pain) 8-35%

Crimincal defendants 12-20%

Detection of malingering

identification of instances of improbability

characterize dysfunction as consciously and deliberately produced

acquire convincing evidence (be cautious of the patient's self report!)

determine motives of the patient (must identify potential secondary gain)

Consideration of context is important (voluntary vs. involuntary)

implications beyond the treatment process (legal outcomes, disability applications, workers compensation)

Potential Signs of Malingering

1. overplayed and dramatic presentation

2. deliberateness and carefulness in presentation

3. symptoms inconsistent w/psychiatric diagnosis

4. inconsistency of self-report

5. endorsement of obvious symptoms

6. approx. answers to questions

7. eagerness to discuss symptoms

8. eagerness for psychotropic meds

9. extreme severity of symptoms

10. endorsement of unusual or rare symptoms

11. indiscriminate endorsement of symptoms

12. unusual combinations of symptoms

13. discrepancy between reported and observed symptoms

Collateral information in malingering

collateral information can be critical

1. verbal reports of friends and family

2. prior treatment records

3. school records

4. legal records

Psychological testing for malingering

response style indicators on some standard personality tests

tests that assess for malingered memory impairment

tests that assess for malingering of generalized cognitive impairment

tests that assess for malingering of psychiatric symptomatology

Instruments for testing malingering

Rey 15-item memory test

test of memory malingering (TOMM)

MMPI-2

structured interview of reported symptoms (SIRS)

M-fast

validity indicator profile (VIP)- malingering of cognitive impairment

Advantages of psychological testing for malingering

questions are asked in a standardized manner

idiosyncratic contributions of the clinician are minimized

results are comparable to every other administration of the test

clinical prediction, diagnosis, and classifications are governed by the same decision rules

U.S. V. Greer (1998)

Convicted of kidnapping, sentenced to 185 months

malingered in pre-trial forensic evaluations

court determined that malingering contributes obstruction of justice

sentence enhanced, additional 25 months in prison

Insanity defense

mental condition at time of the offense

the evaluation assists the court in determining whether the individual should be held accountable for their actions

criminally responsible vs. morally blameless

goal of insanity defense

determine what the patient's mental status was at the time they committed the crime

Myths about the insanity defense

1. the insanity defense is overused

2. use of insanity defense is limited to murder cases

3. there is no risk to the defendant who pleads insanity

4. NGRI acquittees are quickly released from custody

5. NGRI acquittees spend much less time in custody than do defendants convicted of the same offenses.

6. criminal defendants who plead insanity are usually faking

7. most insanity defense trials feature "battle of the experts"

8. Criminal defense attorneys employ the insanity defense solely to "beat the rap"

Insanity determination

difficulty in determining insanity

insanity is a legal concept that may vary from one jurisdiction to another

requires a retrospective assessment of the person's state at the time of the offense (perhaps months or years prior)

Contemporary criminal law

there are two components in every crime:

Actus reus- the guilty act

Mens rea- the guilty mind

Three basic criminal defenses

1. Deny the actus reus

2. deny the mens rea (had no intent to...)

3. provide justification for the act

Mens rea

"a guilty mind" is necessary for a determination of guilt and punishment in most criminal offenses

(awareness of the act and implications)

Not guilty by reason of insanity

NGRI defense

it involves denial of the mens rea

if successful, results in commitment to a psychiatric hospital

M'naghten rule

defining insanity

used by 27 U.S. states

elements:

1. "defect of reason, from a disease of the mind"

2. did not know the "nature and quality of the act he was doing"

3. did not know that "what he was doing was wrong"

Considered a cognitive test of insanity

Irresistible impulse test

standard added to account for individuals who knew the act was wrong but lacked the capacity to control their behavior

volitional aspect of insanity

problem: it is difficult to distinguish between an irresistible impulse and one that is simply not resisted

added to M'naghten rule in 5 states (CO, GA,NM,TX, VA)

The Durham test

standard:

the defendant is not criminally responsible if his or her unlawful act was a product of mental disease or defect

Problem:

application of any familiar clinical-diagnostic label?

Only used currently in New Hampshire

The American Law Institute (ALI) standard or Brawner rule

elements:

1. as a result of mental disease or defect

2. lacks substantial capacity to: 1. appreciate wrongfulness OR 2. conform conduct to the law

(excludes abnormalities comprised of antisocial conduct)

includes a cognitive and volitional prong

currently 18 states use the ALI standard

Federal also uses ALI

Which states don't provide any legal basis for a insanity defense?

there's four:

ID, KS, MT, UT

What happens after NGRI is determined?

After the court has found someone NGRI, they are sent to a hospital for further evaluation

evaluated to determine if they meed the standards for commitability, treatment needs, etc.

Supplements to insanity defense: "Guilty but mentally ill" verdict (GBMI)

recognizes that the defendant has a mental illness, but they are still held responsible for their actions.

defendant is provided treatment at a state mental hospital until he or she is declared to be sane, then is sent to prison

recognized in 13 states

Criticisms of GBMI

1. differing definitions and incarceration decisions

2. difficulty distinguishing NGRI and GBMI

3. has not led to reduced NGRI acquittals

4. does not ensure that offenders receive effective treatment

Insanity defense reform act of 1984

congress radically overhauled the federal laws regarding insanity after the Hinkley verdict. (tried to assassinate Regan).

removed the volitional prong of ALI rule

Focus on cognitive "appreciation"

Burden of proof: shifted to defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence

most states concur, but typically with the preponderance of the evidence standard

Assessment of mental status: psychologist's role in insanity cases

interviews, often unstandardized and unstructured, but used in almost every case

psychological assessment