Forensic Psychology

What is Forensic Psychology

• Application of psychological principles to legal questions.

• Not limited to crimes

• Exists in criminal, civil, family courts, corrections, policy, and research

• Concerned with legal questions, not therapy goals

What forensic psychology is not

Not criminal psychology which focuses on why people do crimes

Not profiling

Not TV portrayal

Major Subfields of Forensic Psychology 

• Clinical Forensic Psychology: assessment and treatment of offenders.

• Legal Psychology: research on jury decision-making, eyewitness memory 

• Correctional Psychology: interventions within jail and prison settings 

• Police Psychology: selection, training, and wellness of law enforcement 

• Criminal Psychology: profiling, behavior analysis, and motivation studies. 

Roles: Assessment

What it looks like: Interviewing a defendant or parent, Administering psychological tests, Reviewing records (police reports, medical records, school records), Writing a report for the court

Legal questions being answered: Is the defendant competent to stand trial? Was the defendant insane at the time of the crime? What is the risk of future violence? Which parent should have custody?

Roles: Treatment

What it looks like: Medication to reduce psychosis, Therapy to restore competency, Psychoeducation about the court process, Anger management or sex offender treatment ordered by the court

Important forensic twist: NOT long-term healing, NOT “what’s best emotionally”, Goal = legal participation or risk reduction

Roles: Consultation

What it looks like:

Advising attorneys on jury selection, How jurors might perceive a witness, How to frame questions, Explaining psychological concepts to lawyers, No evaluation of defendants required

Roles: Research

What it looks like:

Conducting studies on; False confessions; Eyewitness reliability; Risk assessment tools; Publishing findings which influences laws, policies, or court standards

Roles: Testimony

What it looks like: Psychologist appears in court to explain Evaluation findings; Psychological concepts; Subject to cross-examination; Must meet admissibility standards (Frye/Daubert)

Two types:

Expert witness → opinions based on science

Fact witness → reports observations only

Ethics vs. Law

• Ethical ≠ Legal

• Legal ≠ Ethical

Psychology vs. the Law

Psychology looks at likelihoods, risk, probabilities while the Law looks at rules, thresholds, guilt/innocence

• A degree → psychology

• A yes/no ruling → law

Dual Relationships & Bias

• Objectivity over advocacy

• Try to avoid as much as possible and remain neutral with balances findings

• Don't work in the clients best interest, but work in answering the legal questions and be careful of conformation bias

Courts: Federal Courts

Constitution and federal law

Courts: State Courts

Most criminal and civil cases

Courts: Specialty Courts

• Drug

• Mental heath

• Juvenile 

• Care court 

• Veterans Court 

Pretrial

• Before guilt is decided

• Arrest, bail, detention (typical for juveniles), and mental health evaluations/treatments

Trial

• Jury Selection

• Determining guilt or liability 

• Witness testimony 

• Expert psychologists

What is Trial Consulting

• Psychologists help lawyers: 

  • Understand jurors 

  • Prepare Witness 

  • Use Research 

• Scientific Jury Selection

  • Use psychology research 

  • Looks at bias & attitudes 

  • Used in high-stakes trials (civil litigation or capital cases) 

  • Defendants pay for this 

• Expert Witness

  • Explain psychology in court 

  • Must be qualified 

  • Must remain objective 

  • Are educators not advisers

  • The fact witness: just about the client, mcat score, conversations 

  • Cross-examination will challenge you   

  • Avoid absolute statements, no arguing

Sentencing

• After guilt is decided

• Judge decides punishment

• Risk assessments used

• Treatment recommendations considered

Appeals

• Higher court reviews process

• No new evidence usually

• Psychologist roles are rare, but may involve research and consultation on legal standards

Court Cases: Frye

What happened: Frye tried to use an early lie detector (blood pressure test) as evidence. The court said: How do we even know this works? Blood pressure ≠ lying. Too unreliable.

Big legal question: When should scientific evidence be allowed in court?

Court’s rule (the Frye Standard): Scientific evidence is admissible ONLY IF it is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.

Why it matters: Set the first major rule for expert testimony. Very strict → slows down new science entering court.

Court Cases: Dusky

What happened: Dusky had schizophrenia. He knew he was charged, but couldn’t communicate rationally with his lawyer. Trial court still said he was competent (wrongly).

Big legal question: What does it actually mean to be competent to stand trial?

Court’s rule (the Dusky Standard):

A defendant must have a factual understanding of the proceedings, have a rational understanding, be able to consult with their attorney meaningfully

Why it matters: Diagnosis ≠ incompetence, Competency is a legal decision, not a medical label, Focuses on present ability, not past or future

Court Cases: Tarasoff

What happened: Patient told therapist he planned to kill a specific woman. Therapist warned campus police but did not warn the woman. Patient killed her.

Big legal question: Does a therapist have a duty to warn potential victims?

Court’s rule (theTarasoff Duty): If a patient poses a serious, foreseeable risk to an identifiable person a therapist must take reasonable steps to protect the victim. This can include warning the victim and/or law enforcement

Why it matters:

• Confidentiality has limits.

• Protecting life > privacy.

Extra clarification: Danger to others → Tarasoff, Danger to self / others / gravely disabled → 5150 (72 hrs), 5250 (14 days in CA)

Court Cases: Daubert

What happened: Parents claimed a drug caused birth defects. Trial court excluded expert testimony because it wasn’t “generally accepted.”

Big legal question: Is general acceptance (Frye) enough, or should judges do more?

Court’s rule (the Daubert Standard): Judges are gatekeepers who evaluate scientific evidence based on: Testability, Peer review, Known or potential error rates, Standards controlling the technique, and Relevance and reliability

Why it matters: Replaced Frye in federal courts and allows new but reliable science into court

Court Cases: Atkins

What happened: Atkins had intellectual disability. Sentenced to death.

Big legal question: Does executing someone with an intellectual disability violate the 8th Amendment?

Court’s rule: Yes. Executing individuals with intellectual disabilities is unconstitutional as it violates cruel and unusual punishment.

Why it matters: Courts rely on psychological evaluations that look at intellectual functioning, adaptive behavior, and onset before age 18

Forensic vs Clinical Assesment

Forensic: Legal focus, Court is the “client”, Evaluative, and Limited confidentiality

Clinical: Treatment focus, Patient is the client, Collaborative, and Traditional confidentiality

Competency

Present ability to understand charges, legal proceedings & assist attorney. Looks at the present

Insanity

Mental state at the time of the crime. Looks at the past

Limits of Confidentiality

Most forensic evaluations = no traditional confidentiality

Evaluatee is informed and told that info goes to the court, especially true for: Court-ordered evaluations

Competency vs. Insanity

Competency = Present

Insanity = Past

You can be: Competent but insane, Incompetent but sane

Restoration of Competency

Goal is not mental health recovery, but ability to participate in legal process

Methods are medication, therapy, and legal education

Ethical Foundations:

Governed by APA Ethical Principles and Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology

Key Concerns are dual relationships and conflicts of interest, informed consent and confidentiality, cultural competence and bias mitigation, transparency and documentation integrity

What is Police & Public Safety Psychology?

• Application of psychology to law enforcement and public safety

• Focus on effectiveness, safety, ethics, and legality

• Includes police, firefighters, EMTs, dispatchers

• Addresses trauma, stress, and decision making

Court Cases: Tennessee v. Garner

Limits deadly force, and only allowed deadly force when a suspect is a threat to them or others which is difficult to make in split second

Graham v. Connor

In essence, Graham v. Connor provided a framework to fairly assess police force by focusing on the immediate situation and the reasonable actions of an officer, not on what seems best in hindsight.

What is Profiling

• Infers characteristics from behavior and evidence

• Not limited to crime

• Often called Behavioral analysis or Investigative psychology

• Term "profiling" is viewed skeptically in courts

Eyewitness Memory problems

• Memory is reconstructive and easily distorted

• Influenced by stress, leading questions, post-event information

Malingering

• Symptom exaggeration

• External incentives

• Behavior not a diagnosis

Allegiance bias

The tendency for researchers, therapists, or experts to unconsciously (or consciously) favor a specific treatment, theory, or party they are affiliated with, often influencing outcomes in psychotherapy, research studies, or forensic evaluations.

In legal or forensic contexts, expert witnesses may exhibit bias based on whether they were hired by the defense or prosecution, potentially impacting their objectivity in assessing a case.

Confirmation bias

the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.