Forensic psychology

Early Foundations As early as the 19th century, criminal profiling began to emerge, with the Jack the Ripper case being the first instance of criminal profiling, by forensic doctor and surgeon Thomas Bond. In the first decade of the 20th century, Hugo Münsterberg, the first director of Harvard's psychological laboratory and a student of Wilhelm Wundt, one of the first experimental psychologists, authored On the Witness Stand. In the publication, Münsterberg attempted to demonstrate how psychological research could be applied in legal proceedings. Sigmund Freud also discussed how psychopathological processes play a role in criminal behavior. Adoption of Tools and Legal Practices In 1917, the lie detector was invented by the psychologist William Marston. Six years after its invention, Marston brought his lie detector to court in the case of Frye v. United States at the request of James A. Frye's attorneys, who hoped Marston's device would prove their client's innocence. The results were not deemed admissible, due to lie detection not being widely accepted in the scientific community. This led to the creation of the Frye standard, which states scientific evidence is only admissible when it has prominent standing within the scientific community. The 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, was the first where the Supreme Court of the United States referenced expert opinions by psychologists. After this, the preponderance of psychological mechanisms within courtrooms began to be considered beneficial. In 1993, the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical introduced the standard of admissibility when an expert witness is on the stand. The case started after the parents of Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller, sued Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals after their children were born with serious birth defects due to a drug called Bendectin. After moving the case to federal court, then Merrell Dow moved for summary judgement when they submitted documents show that there was no published scientific study demonstrating any links between the drug Bendectin and birth defects. Then Daubert and Schuller submitted expert evidence as well, showing that Bendectin did cause birth defects, based on in vitro and in vivo animal studies, pharmacological studies and reanalysis of other published studies. At the time of the case these methodologies of evidence were not considered to be acceptable. The summary judgement was granted to Merrell Dow, the parents appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit had only granted summary judgment because the plaintiffs' proffered evidence that were accepted as a reliable technique by scientist. The reason it was granted to Merrell Dow was because at the time of the case the Frye standard was considered the correct standard of evidence. This Daubert standard eventually became the standard used by the U.S. Supreme Court. The standard is considered to be a part of the Federal Rules of Evidence, this also includes the admissibility of evidence as well. The Supreme Court reversed, and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Through the remand, the court was able to analyze the evidence presented under the new standard and decided to uphold the district court's original grant of summary judgement for the defendant. Because of this case ruling the Daubert standard was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, the old Frye standard while being used more by most states, has been slowly overturned and no longer referencing to it. Field Recognition In 1969, the American Psychology–Law Society was founded, later being converted into Division 41 of the APA in 1980. By 2001, forensic psychology was recognized as a professional specialty by the American Psychological Association. At the University of Liverpool, David V. Canter is credited with the creation of the term investigative psychology, a sub-specialization of forensic psychology that pertains to of criminal behavior and the investigative process. The 20th-century psychologist William Stern, conducted numerous experiments on eyewitness testimony, credibility, consistency, and the influence of leading questions in court. Involvement in Pop Culture Recently, forensic psychology has grown in popularity in the media. For example, many recent docuseries on Netflix feature forensic psychological content, including Making a Murderer and Sins of our Mother. Other TV shows and movies such as Criminal Minds, Manhunter, Mindhunter, and Silence of The Lambs have widely popularized the practice of criminal profiling, particularly within the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU). One example of a highly publicized case that used forensic psychology was Ted Bundy's sentencing. In 1980, he went to trial and was evaluated by multiple psychology professionals to determine his ability to stand before the court. The results from the multiple psychologist evaluations determined that Ted Bundy was fit to stand before the court. == Training and education ==

Forensic psychology involves both elements of basic as well as applied work. Forensic psychologists may hold a PhD or Psy.D. in clinical psychology, counseling psychology, social psychology, organizational psychology, school psychology, or experimental psychology. There are no specific license requirements in the United States to be a forensic psychologist, although U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia require licensure for psychologists in the state they intend to practice. A recent field survey of U.S. forensic psychologists found that most practitioners were mid-career, White, and female. Many respondents reported carrying student loan debt, and the study revealed gender-based and role-based pay disparities. There is a wide range of pay for individuals in the forensic psychology field. In the United States, the median annual income of clinical-forensic psychologists is $125,000 - $149,999, and the pay can range from $50,000 (entry-level) a year to more than $350,000 a year. As of 2023, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, has seen a 7% rise in psychologist employment, which is faster than average, and there has been 207,500 new jobs for psychologists. == Practice and research in forensic psychology ==

Forensic psychology may be utilized in five major areas (police and public safety, law, crime and delinquency, victimology and victim services, and corrections) and two sub-areas (family and schools)., which applies human factors theory, principles and data to analyze systems failures that involve interactions between users/operators with equipment, consumer products or processes. Forensic human factors professionals seek to understand and explain factors such as cognition, perception and human information processing, naturalistic decision making, situational awareness, and expectancy that may have contributed to specific human-system failures or injury events. Forensic human factors may be utilized to identify causal factors or establish liability in areas such as aviation accidents, automobile crashes, falls, occupational injuries, and sociotechnical system failure. Practice/direct service Forensic psychologists complete evaluations and assessments to assess a person's psychological state for legal purposes. Reasons for completing these evaluations can involve acquiring information for criminal court (such as insanity, incompetence), sentencing; family court (including child custody or parental termination cases), or civil court (involving, for example, personal injury, competence to manage one's financial affairs, and psychological autopsies especially as related to testamentary capacity). Additional assessments that these professionals can perform include school threats. Often times, their roles are evaluating the evidence, reviewing research, and advising on best practices. A forensic psychologist is responsible for assessing and reporting results of an evaluation, but does not make decisions on "ultimate issues", such as competence to stand trial or service-connected disability for U.S. military veterans. Instead, the information provided by the expert evaluator is analyzed and is ruled on by the court which ordered the evaluation to take place. Treatment Forensic psychologists may be asked to administer psychological interventions to those requiring or requesting services in both criminal and civil cases. Regarding criminal cases, forensic psychologists can work with individuals who have already been sentenced to reduce the likelihood of repeating their offense. Other treatments are frequently put together in these case, especially for substance use disorder, sex offenders, mental illness, or anger management. Consultations Providing consultations allows forensic psychologists to apply psychological expertise and research to help law enforcement, attorneys, and other legal professionals or proceedings better understand human behavior (e.g. criminal, witness, victim, jury), civil processes, effects of trauma or other life events, and so on. If working as a consultant, a forensic psychologist can be involved in legal proceedings through responsibilities such as reviewing court records (such as a defendant's psychosocial history or assessing mitigating or aggravating factors in a case), serving as a jury consultant (organizing focus groups, shadow juries, mock juries, or helping with the voir dire proceedings), and assessment without testimony (in which results of a defendant's evaluation are not disclosed to the prosecution team, allowing the defense team to develop a defense strategy), among others. Essentially, consultations can take many forms, including the common ones below: • Law enforcement consultations may take the form of assisting with criminal profiling, developing hiring procedures and methods, determining the psychological fitness of returning officers, or simply lending expertise on certain criminal behaviors. There are several methods and approaches related to criminal profiling, but there is a lot of skepticism and criticism about the efficiency and accuracy of criminal profiling in general. A couple common approaches are the scientific approach, which includes the FBI's Crime Scene Analysis and Canter's Investigative Psychology, and the intuitive approach, which includes Tukey's Behavioral Evidence Analysis. • Trial consultants are psychologists who work with legal professionals, such as attorneys, to aid in case preparation. This includes jury selection, development of case strategy, and witness preparation. Forensic psychologists working as trial consultants rely on research to best advise the individuals they are working with. Because trial consultants are often hired by one specific side in a trial, these psychologists face many ethical issues. It is the psychologist's responsibility to remain neutral when consulting. In other words, the consultant must not choose a side to support and consequentially omit or create information that would be beneficial to one side or another. In a study of forensic psychologists, many acknowledged that emotional reactions or subtle pressures from clients could introduce bias into their evaluations. Strategies like peer consultation and checklists were reported as ways to maintain objectivity in such high-stakes settings. Before accepting a case to work on, the forensic psychologist weighs the responsibilities of consulting on that case with the ethical guidelines put in place for the field of forensic psychology. The requirements that must be met for forensic psychologists to be considered expert witnesses include clinical psychology expertise and knowledge of the laws that have jurisdiction over the court they are to testify. Procedural and legal rules guide expert testimony, including that the evidence must be relevant to the case, the method the expert used must be valid and reliable, and that the evidence will help the trier of fact. Researchers test hypotheses empirically regarding issues related to psychology and the law, such as jury research and research on mental health law and policy evaluation. Their research may be published in forensic psychology journals such as Law and Human Behavior or Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, and more broadly, in basic psychology journals. Some famous psychologists in the field include Scott Lilienfeld, who was widely known for his scholarship on psychopathology and psychopathy; Saul Kassin, who is known for studying false confessions; Jennifer Skeem, who is known for studying justice-involved people with mental illness; Michael Saks, who is known for his contributions to jury research and improvements to forensic science; Barbara Spellman, who is known for her cognitive psychology-law work as well as for her open science leadership; and Elizabeth Loftus and Gary Wells, who are both known for their research on eyewitness memory. Education Academic forensic psychologists teach, research, train, and supervise students, among other education-related activities. These professionals also have an advanced degree in psychology (most likely a PhD) and are most often employed at colleges and universities. In addition to holding professorships, forensic psychologists may engage in education by presenting research, hosting talks about a particular subject, or engaging with and educating the community about a relevant forensic psychology topic. Advocacy Through advocacy, forensic psychologists can use psychological research to influence laws and policies. These may be related to certain movements, such as Black Lives Matter or the Me Too movement, or may even be related to certain civil rights that are being overlooked. Risk Assessment and Sentencing In recent decades, the use of risk assessment in criminal sentencing has grown. Forensic psychologists have been involved in assessing the probability that an individual will engage in future criminal or violent behavior. Risk assessment's goal in to reduce recidivism by incapacitating or treating high-risk offenders and to reduce prison populations by diverting low-risk offenders from prison. When risk assessments are incorporated directly into legal judgements about punishment, imprisonment, and release, forensic psychologists play three pivotal roles in shaping fair and evidence-based sentencing practices. Roles in risk assessment sentencing • Inform decisions about imprisonment of higher-risk offenders - If an offender has the likelihood to commit crime again, the offender can be sentenced to a more severe sentencing. • Inform supervised release of lower-risk offenders - If an offender has a lower likelihood of committing another crime, a less severe sentencing can be determined. • Inform efforts to reduce offender risk status - Tools are used to monitor ebbs and flows in an offender's risk state which then determine the level of severity in sentencing. When Forensic psychologists partake in risk assessment, risk factors are reviewed to determine the likelihood of criminal behavior. There are four types of risk factors for recidivism. A fixed marker is a risk factor that cannot be changed such as age. A variable marker cannot be changed through intervention like age. A variable risk factor can change through intervention such as employment status. A casual risk factor can change through intervention and can reduce recidivism such as substance abuse. Risk assessment in criminal sentencing has been associated with four major concerns. Conflating risk with blame, generalizing individual data based on group data, measuring risk does not lead to risk reduction, and tools may produce bias and disparity. Additionally, risk-assessment instruments may inadvertently reinforce racial and socioeconomic disparities, as underlying data can reflect historical patterns of unequal treatment. == Forensic psychological evaluations ==

Common types of evaluations Forensic assessments of competencies Competence, in a legal setting, refers to the defendant's ability to appreciate and understand the charges against them and what is happening in the legal proceedings, as well as their ability to help the lawyer understand and defend their case. Multiple cases have helped define competence. In Dusky v. United States (1960), the case upheld the Youtsey v. United States ruling and set specific criteria for competence. These include having a rational and factual understanding of court proceedings and being able to consult with an attorney in a rational manner. ==== Forensic assessment of insanity ==== Insanity, as opposed to competence, refers to an individual's mental state at the time of the crime rather than at the time of the trial. There are various definitions of insanity acknowledged within the legal system. Criteria for insanity can vary by state. Violence risk assessment Violence risk assessment evaluates how dangerous an individual is and the risk of them re-offending, also referred to as recidivism. Risk assessments are used in sentencing and affect the possibility of an inmate receiving parole or being released from prison. If someone poses a lower risk, it is likely they will avoid the intensive services. Imposition of the death penalty often requires a consideration of "future dangerousness," for which risk assessment can play a vital role. (though there have been some issues raised with the evidence supporting this claim). • Anamnestic assessment is another type, which is a form of clinical risk assessment that is focused on risk factors specific to the individual being examined. Bias in forensic assessment may also arise from contextual influences found that even trained graduate students altered their interpretation of identical test data depending on case narratives, demonstrating that judgment can be unintentionally skewed by case details unrelated to the actual assessment results. Additionally, because most actuarial risk assessment tools are based on static (or unchanging) risk factors, SPJ tools tend to be better at identifying dynamic risk factors (which can be changed), and thus can be more useful in treatment settings than actuarial assessments. and the Classification of Violence Risk (COVR). Thirty-one meta-analysis studies have been performed to understand if one assessment tool is more accurate than the other. With over 45,673 risk assessments, findings showed structured tools significantly outperformed unstructured in determining violence risk. The most recent studies began in 2014 with those in the field calling it the "era" of risk assessment. As it's become more popular, the debate has grown increasingly. • Immigration/asylum evaluations. In removal proceedings, the judge or parties may request the assistance of a forensic psychologist for those individuals eligible to apply for various forms of immigration benefits. There are eight grounds for an individual to apply for which are hardship, risk for torture, asylum, domestic violence, ANAC (abused, neglected, or abandoned children), discretionary determinations, risk assessment, and competence to proceed. Distinction between forensic and therapeutic evaluation A forensic psychologist's interactions with and ethical responsibilities to the client differ widely from those of a psychologist dealing with a client in a clinical setting. • '''Importance of client's perspective'''. A clinician places primary importance on understanding the client's unique point of view, while a forensic psychologist is interested in accuracy, and the client's viewpoint is secondary. • Voluntariness. Usually, in a clinical setting, a psychologist is dealing with a voluntary client. A forensic psychologist evaluates clients by order of a judge or at the behest of an attorney. • Autonomy. Voluntary clients have more latitude and autonomy regarding the assessment's objectives. Any assessment usually takes their concerns into account. The objectives of a forensic examination are confined by the applicable statutes or common law elements that pertain to the legal issue in question. • Threats to validity. While the client and therapist are working toward a common goal, although unconscious distortion may occur, in the forensic context there is a substantially greater likelihood of intentional and conscious distortion. • Relationship and dynamics. While therapeutic interactions work toward developing a trusting, empathic therapeutic alliance, a forensic psychologist may not ethically nurture the client or act in a "helping" role, as the forensic evaluator has divided loyalties and there are substantial limits on confidentiality they can guarantee the client. A forensic evaluator must always be aware of manipulation in the adversary context of a legal setting. These concerns mandate an emotional distance that is unlike a therapeutic interaction. Nine Recommended Guidelines For Eyewitness Identification Procedures Source: In particular, this study showed that racial bias influencers how jurors interpret identification evidence, jury education and diversity must be emphasized, and cross-race identification bis and memory reliability remains essential to avoid wrongful convictions. == Ethics in forensic psychology ==

The ethical recommendations and expectations outlined for forensic psychology specifically are listed in the APA's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology. Forensic Psychologists are required to work within the limitations of their competence, as determined by their education, training, supervised experiences, consultation, research, or professional experience. Examples of skewed ethics An example of skewed ethics in forensic psychology would be the different tests used to measure the command of authority. Two very infamous cases of this would be the Stanford Prison Experiments and the Milgram experiment. The Stanford Prison Experiment put college aged students into a prison simulation where they were randomly assigned to fulfill the role of either "guards" or "prisoners" This case was found to be unethical because it was found to be harmful to the participant past what should have been allowed. Stanley Milgram conducted research on how far people would go to obey authority figure if another person was harmed in the process. How the situation influenced the individual proves as a way to draw conclusions about the individual and their upbringing. Forensic psychology finds this information useful to know when and how authority can affect a situation, but mostly to know the boundaries that research can be pushed and when something is deemed unethical. == Police interrogations and false confessions ==

Forensic psychologists study how certain police interrogation methods can lead to false confessions, especially from people who are vulnerable. Research shows that long interrogations, high-pressure tactics, and presenting false evidence can cause innocent people to confess to crimes they didn't commit. People who are young, tired, confused, or have mental health or cognitive issues are more likely to be affected by these situations. False confessions can be divided into three types: voluntary, persuaded, and compliant; which vary depending on the psychological needs of the individual, level of internal belief regarding the confession, and degree of pressure experienced. False confessions can also contribute to an individual entering a guilt-like state, which in turn can influence psychological distress and internal turmoil. Forensic psychologists also examine eyewitness memory and identification. Research has shown that confirming feedback after a mistaken identification can cause a witness to become more confident while decreasing the accuracy of their memory. Tools like eye-tracking add new methods for understanding cognitive and behavioral responses related to criminal behavior. For example, eye-tracking studies have been used to assess patterns of visual attention in individuals with paraphilic disorders, helping provide additional data for risk evaluations in criminal investigations. Some common strategies used by police like lying about evidence, offering lighter punishment for confessing, or acting sympathetic can confuse suspects or make them feel like confessing is the best or only option, even if they are innocent. These manuals do not disclose this information since the techniques revolve around deception in order to get a suspect to confess as a confession is the goal in these interrogations. Criminal interrogations aim at getting a confession out of a suspect whereas, intelligence interrogations focus on acquiring accurate information on which legal action can be taken. == Consent ==

Consent plays a large role in Forensic Psychology. Informed consent is required for psychologists, and when services are required by law or another authority, psychologists must inform the individual of the nature of the anticipated services, including whether the services are court ordered or mandated and any limits of confidentiality, before proceeding, according to the APA ethics code 3.10(c). Additionally, standard 3.10(d) stipulates that consent needs to be well documented. Both the individual in question and the council that is representing them must provide their approval. If the person is legally unable to give their own consent then legal counsel for that individual must be sought. The person must be informed by the Forensic Psychologist of all the various guidelines pertaining to the expected services, including the extent of confidentiality. == Confidentiality in Forensic psychology ==

A forensic psychologist's primary responsibility is to safeguard their clients anonymity by taking appropriate measures and communicating any limitations, the client is trusting them to keep all topics discussed with them confidential. Only the clients or legally authorized person's consent may be disclosed; without the clients consent, disclosure may only occur when required by law, when the psychologist utilizes the information for the clients protection or consultation, or both. == Notable research in forensic psychology ==

• Maryanne Garry conducted research on imagination inflation, and whether imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred. The study investigated whether imagining a childhood event that did not happen increased individuals confidence that it did. The results suggested that participants who originally reported an event did not happen changed their mind after imagining the scenario. Moreover, Garry also conducted research that used the premise of misremembered events in relation to eye witnesses and their chance of accepting (and confirming) a suggested occurrence, even if it was not accurate to what they saw. The study found that 30% of participants met criteria for false memory and 43% met criteria for false memories. Neal's publications also assist lawmakers' understanding as to when psychological assessments can be challenged; similarly, they help psychologists to see when their assessments can be strengthened. ==See also==