Forensic Psychology For Dummies (98 page)
Read Forensic Psychology For Dummies Online
Authors: David Canter
Many of the aspects that are evaluated in the SARN reflect aspects of personality disorder that are also explored in other protocols. The main difference from assessing a person using the SARN and, for example, Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist (that I describe in the earlier section ‘Using the psychopathy checklist’), is that the checklist assigns a person to a particular
personality type,
whereas the SARN gives a profile of the psychology of the individual in various areas of his functioning. By combining this with what is known about the person and his circumstances, forensic psychologists can make predictions of future risk and the appropriate forms of treatment.
Working with the young: Juvenile Sexual Offender Protocol
Youngsters who become involved in violence and especially sexual assaults pose a particular risk-assessment challenge for the authorities. They may not be regarded as having
mens rea
(knowing what they’re doing) and so the law may not allow them to be imprisoned as a form of punishment, but instead recommends treatment. Although greater potential may exist for successfully treating juveniles than for adults who are already set in their ways, research has established that young people who find their way into any form of illegal activity have an increased risk of drifting into a life of crime (and so present a risk to the public). For this reason, any successful interventions early in an offender’s development can be of great significance.
Forensic psychologists have given a lot of attention to assessing the nature of the risk of re-offending by juveniles. A typical example of a number of developed procedures is the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol (J-SOAP), which is designed for use with 12 to 18-year-olds. It draws on as much objective information as possible, so that the personal, subjective judgement of the assessor is kept to a minimum.
J-SOAP covers the four following crucial aspects of the offender:
Adjustment in the community:
These are the protective factors that I discuss earlier in this section, including the stability of the current living situation and experience of schooling. Other positive support systems are also of relevance.
This focuses on what I refer to as static factors earlier in this section: the variety of offences for which the offender was arrested before the age of 16, but also the inconsistency of experience of caregivers.
An exploration of any lack of empathy for victims or remorse for crimes is considered in relation to any treatment the offender may have received. This aspect relates to the possibility of the personality disorder of psychopathy that I discuss in the earlier section ‘Examining the Inability to Relate: Psychopathy’.
This includes the number of offences for which the youngster has been convicted, including the extent to which he has himself been a victim. His preoccupation with sexual activity is also assessed.
Part IV
Viewing Psychology in Court
In this part . . .
Forensic psychology started off as a service to the courts around the 1900s. That is still a central part of the area, although probably more forensic psychologists these days work in other settings. As in other areas their contribution to the legal process has broadened out. What started as assessment of defendants to determine if they had the mental capability to deal with the legal process, has reached out into considerations of jury selection (most notably in the US) and advising attorneys on how to ask questions. Many of these contributions to the work of the courts raises challenging issues about what is the appropriate due process, and whether psychologists are over-stepping the mark by these contributions. By getting a fuller understanding of these issues in this part, you will be in a better position to join in this important debate.
Chapter 11
Giving Guidance in Legal Proceedings
In This Chapter
Appraising the legal aspects of insanity
Seeing how forensic psychology contributes to civil proceedings
As I mention in Chapter 1, the ‘forensic’ part of forensic psychology indicates a professional activity that provides guidance to the courts. So, although the current reach of forensic psychologists extends well beyond the courts into many secure settings such as prisons, a common activity is offering guidance to legal proceedings. Traditionally, this activity started with comments on the reliability of testimony (often dealing with the erratic nature of memory that I explore in Chapter 4), but it soon blossomed to include comments on the mental state of defendants.
Some forensic psychologists become associated with particular points of view and consequently offer opinions solely for the prosecution or for the defence. However, as in all other areas of expert evidence, the legal process forces the development of standard procedures in order to reach conclusions. Over time, frequently challenged evidence disappears from the courts and accepted procedures become better established.
In this chapter, I explore some of these standard procedures, including: issues of competency; what constitutes insanity in criminal cases; what to do about people after they’re convicted (especially assessing how dangerous they’re likely to be); how to form an opinion about someone’s mental state at the time of their death after the death; and ways in which forensic psyhcologists can contribute to civil court cases.
Come on in!
Although psychologists had been popping up in courts around the world for over 100 years, only in 1962 did a US court formally accept that a psychologist (that is, someone without medical training, as opposed to a psychiatrist – I explain the differences between these professions in detail in Chapter 1) could testify about mental health issues. This decision rectified a situation in which many formal assessments about mental health were made by psychologists trained in the use of the tests outlined in Chapter 9, rather than medical doctors or psychiatrists. A psychiatrist or medical doctor then reported these procedures in court. It makes much more sense for the person who gave the test to report on the results than someone else doing it second hand.
Assessing Insanity Pleas in Court
Forensic psychologists may be called as expert court witnesses to provide testimony concerning a defendant’s claim of insanity. Other professionals, especially psychiatrists are likely to be called as well. Whether it’s a psychiatrist or a psychologist will vary from place to place, depending sometimes on who happens to be available.
Legal casebooks are full of defendants who exhibit the most bizarre behaviour even when giving evidence in court (behaviour that most people would agree indicates that they’re obviously mad) but who are still found guilty and whom the courts don’t classify as insane. I touch on this subject briefly in Chapter 2, but because it’s the starting point for a lot of forensic psychology advice to the courts, I examine the issue more closely in this section.
Forensic psychologists may be required to provide some sort of psychological assessment of the defendant at three broad stages in the legal process:
when issues of the person’s competence to stand trial are considered.
when the issue of the defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime may be significant.