Chapter 1-5 Notes: Introduction to Forensic Psychology

Definition of Forensic Psychology

Forensic psychology is a subfield of psychology in which basic and applied psychological science or scientifically oriented professional practice is applied to the law to help resolve legal, contractual, or administrative matters.
Core idea: forensic psychologists help courts make decisions when a question involving psychology is relevant to a legal issue.
Primary pre-adjudication role: psychologists provide services (research presentation, testimony, assessment, treatment) to inform the legal decision before a verdict or sentence is issued.

History andOrigins

Forensic psychiatry precedes forensic psychology; medicine is older and psychiatry is a medical specialty. Forensic psychiatrists complete medical training (MD/DO) and then specialize in forensics.
Psychology path: typically a PhD (Clinical or Counseling Psychology) or a PsyD, with broad clinical training plus a forensic specialization either during graduate school or via a postdoctoral fellowship.
Isaac Ray (American psychiatrist, 1800s) is credited as a founder of forensic psychiatry; first to publish on insanity and to theorize how psychiatry can inform legal decisions in cases involving mental illness.
Ray’s work influenced the case against Daniel McNaughton in 1843, which established an early legal test of insanity (to be discussed later with mental state at the time of offense).
The United States is notable for having many more forensic psychologists involved in cases than many other countries, where forensic psychiatrists are more common.
David Bazelon, a judge, presided over Jenkins v. United States (1962), which established that mental health professionals other than psychiatrists can answer questions about mental health in legal cases.
In contrast to the U.S., countries like Canada and many European nations often reserve such work for psychiatrists because of medical training.

Field and Scope: Psychology and Law

Forensic psychology is a major subfield within the broader umbrella of Psychology and Law (AP-LS).
AP-LS = Division 41 of the American Psychological Association; dedicated to Psychology and Law, a broader field that includes forensic psychology.
All subfields of psychology can have a forensic role if they help answer legal questions in individual cases.
The field encompasses researchers and clinicians from many backgrounds who contribute to the court’s understanding of legal questions using psychological knowledge.
Additional resources available at the AP-LS website (course page link provided by instructor).
Takeaway: ANY area of psychology can be relevant to forensic work when applied to informing legal decisions.

Perspectives from AP-LS Video (Key Points from Practitioners)

The field is broad; it merges psychology with the legal system, using methods from social, cognitive, developmental, and clinical psychology to test and inform legal assumptions.
The relationship between the legal system and psychological science can be a misfit in some cases, creating opportunities for psychologists to contribute.
The field spans both research and clinical practice; clinicians work with civil litigants and criminal defendants to help jurors and judges make better decisions.
Researchers study legal decision-making, eyewitness identification, jury selection, and broader social-psychological processes in legal contexts.
Private practitioners evaluate clients to answer specific legal issues; some work includes training judges and lawyers to understand developmental differences in youth and how thinking changes with age.
Research areas include procedural justice, stereotypes and prejudice, group diversity, violence risk assessment, juvenile justice policy, and risk assessment.
The field aims to influence policy and law through empirical research and clinical expertise.
There is value in communicating research findings clearly to legal actors and ensuring evaluations use scientifically validated methods.
The panelists emphasize that the field is not just about solving individual cases; it focuses on systemic issues and improving the justice system overall.
Note: Popular media portrayals (e.g., CSI) can overstate drama; real forensic psychology often addresses root causes and larger-scale issues.

Four Major Roles of Forensic Psychologists

Research: Generating and testing knowledge relevant to law and policy, often to inform policy and practice.
Assessment/Evaluation: Conducting clinical evaluations to address specific legal questions (e.g., competency, mental state at time of offense, custody) and informing legal decisions.
Treatment: Providing therapeutic services when relevant (e.g., restoration of competency, anger management, PTSD treatment in civil contexts).
Testimony: Providing expert testimony in court, often based on research data and interpretation; distinguished from fact witnesses.
Note: Forensic psychologists can testify about any area of research they conduct or clinical experience that translates to legal questions.

Research in Forensic Psychology (Example: Skeem’s Risk Reduction Lab)

Focus: identifying individuals at risk (e.g., self-harm or violence) among populations with serious mental illness and high juvenile justice involvement.
Goals: understand the problem, identify root causes, inform policy and interventions at a systems level rather than only one-on-one clinical work.
Impact: challenging assumptions about problems and developing scalable interventions that address root causes.
Motivation: interest in people with serious mental health problems and a shift from a purely clinical, one-on-one focus to research that can alter large-scale outcomes in juvenile/criminal justice contexts.

Assessment/Evaluation (Example: Dr. Kavanaugh)

Role: Clinical director of a juvenile court clinic (Cook County) for 11 years; now private practice with national reach.
Activities: Evaluate clients for specific legal issues; provide consultation to judges and lawyers about developmental considerations (e.g., differences in thinking between ages 13 vs. 18–19) and how these differences should influence legal proceedings.
Case types: Juvenile offenders (e.g., murder cases potentially transferred to adult court); civil cases (e.g., wrongful conviction lawsuits against the state).
Key principles: Evaluations should be based on established methods and literature; not rely on personal hunches alone.
Impact: Advocated for and contributed to legal changes, such as a Wisconsin ruling requiring recording of juvenile interrogations.
Civil evaluation focus: wrongful conviction cases and other civil matters where damages are pursued.
Core message: Researchers’ findings should guide legal understanding of what to look for in evaluations and how to interpret results.

Treatment (Example: Competency Restoration)

Context: Competency to stand trial can be restored through medication and behavioral treatment when mental illness is treatable and patients are off medication.
Typical process: A judge may order six months of restoration; during this period clinicians report whether the individual is restorable or competent, or needs more time.
Timelines: If more time is needed, extensions may extend up to 15 ext{ months} from the date found incompetent, with possible extension to 21 ext{ months}. If restoration fails, the case may be dismissed with civil commitment proceedings.
Note: This illustrates a key criminal justice role for psychologists focused on restoration and progression toward trial readiness.

Testimony (Expert vs. Fact Witness)

Expert testimony: Based on research findings or clinical expertise to address legal questions (e.g., eyewitness identification reliability, false confessions, treatment effects).
Fact witness: Provides information directly observed or known about the specific case, not expert interpretation.
Case example: Henderson (eyewitness identification) – expert testimony used to inform the court leading to a Supreme Court decision on procedures and juror instructions.
Outcome: The testimony contributed to a change in how identification procedures are evaluated and the development of juror instructions about eyewitness issues.

Criminal vs Civil Systems: Similarities and Differences

Similarities across systems:
- All four areas (research, assessment, treatment, testimony) are relevant in both criminal and civil contexts.
Differences in focus and questions:
- Research topics differ: criminal concerns include jury diversity in capital sentencing, eyewitness identification reliability, mental illness and violence risk, and expert bias; civil concerns include perceptions of sexual harassment, custody and parenting impacts on child mental health.
- Assessments differ: criminal—competency to stand trial; insanity/mental state at the time of offense; civil—parenting capacity, custody evaluations, civil commitment risk.
- Treatment differences: criminal—restoration/attainment of competency; civil—anger management, PTSD treatment after liability events, etc.
- Testimony: broadly applicable in both, with civil examples like interparental conflict or domestic violence effects on children; landmark civil cases include Brown v. Board of Education, which relied on psychological research (Clark doll tests) and where Dr. Clark’s testimony was part of the decision.
Civil example: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) relied on psychology research (Kenneth and Mamie Clark’s doll studies) and Dr. Clark’s testimony to address segregation’s impact on children’s mental health and development.

Key Figures and Concepts Recap

Dr. Skeem: emphasizes risk reduction research for justice-involved individuals with mental illness; focus on identifying root causes and informing policy.
Dr. Kavanaugh: highlights developmentally informed evaluations and training for legal actors; demonstrates the impact of forensic evaluations on policy (e.g., recording interrogations).
Dr. Bayless: restoration to competency case study; outlines typical timelines and potential for dismissal if non-restorable.
Dr. Penrod: eyewitness identification testimony; illustrates the use of research in court decisions and juror instructions.
Dr. Dematteo, Dr. Sivasubramaniam, Dr. Sommers, Dr. Vincent, Dr. Hunt, Dr. Skeem, Dr. Kavanaugh: various research and applied roles spanning bias, procedural justice, juvenile justice policy, risk assessment, and jury decision-making.
Dr. Clark and Kenneth Clark (Brown v. Board of Education): foundational civil-justice psychology lineage; use of the doll test and expert testimony in landmark civil rights decision.

Course Structure and Topics to Be Covered

Core focus areas: competency to stand trial and mental state at the time of offense (insanity).
Coverage will include 11 different types of competencies (to be taught in-class by peers).
Additional optional readings, videos, and podcasts will be provided, including topics like civil commitment and juvenile justice, plus exploratory themes (e.g., how Wonder Woman relates to forensic psychology).
The course aims to give a broad sampling of topics due to the field’s breadth, with deeper dives into the core topics.

Reflections and Ethical/Practical Implications

Prompt for students: reflect on what forensic psychology seemed to be before the course and how their understanding has changed.
Consider how assumptions affect learning, and how the course may correct or refine those assumptions.
Ethical and practical implications include ensuring methodological rigor in evaluations, avoiding bias in testimony, and recognizing the broader social impact of forensic psychology on justice and policy.
The field seeks to contribute to systemic improvements in the justice system, not only to solve individual cases.

Notable References and Resources Mentioned

Jenkins v. United States (1962) – established that mental health professionals beyond psychiatrists can provide relevant mental health expertise in legal cases. 1962
McNaughton case (1843) – foundational insanity test influenced by Isaac Ray’s work. 1843
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – relied on psychological research and testimony; Clark doll tests highlighted.
AP-LS (Division 41 of the American Psychological Association) – broader field including Psychology and Law and forensic psychology.
The course page will link to AP-LS videos and additional resources for extended learning.

Quick Reminders (Key Figures/Terms to Know)

Forensic psychology = psychology informing legal decision-making, often pre-adjudication.
Four major roles: Research, Assessment, Treatment, Testimony.
Expert vs. fact witness distinction in court testimony.
Insanity and competency concepts as core forensic topics, with laws and cases shaping practice.
Civil vs. criminal distinctions in questions, methods, and outcomes.
Importance of methodological rigor and policy-relevant research in informing legal decisions.