Handbook of Psychology, Forensic Psychology

Irving B. Weiner, Randy K. Otto

• Publisher: Wiley
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781118281901
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Psychology is of interest to academics from many fields, as well as to the thousands of academic and clinical psychologists and general public who can't help but be interested in learning more about why humans think and behave as they do. This award-winning twelve-volume reference covers every aspect of the ever-fascinating discipline of psychology and represents the most current knowledge in the field. This ten-year revision now covers discoveries based in neuroscience, clinical psychology's new interest in evidence-based practice and mindfulness, and new findings in social, developmental, and forensic psychology.

Part I

Nature of the Field

Chapter 1

Overview of Forensic Psychology

Randy K. Otto and Alan M. Goldstein

Definition of Forensic Psychology

A Brief History of Forensic Psychology

Organization of This Volume

Summary

References

Definition of Forensic Psychology

The word forensic, derived from the Latin, forensis, means “forum,” the place where trials were conducted in Roman times. The current use of the term forensic typically denotes some involvement of a particular field of study in a legal forum. There is no uniform or commonly accepted definition of forensic psychology—many exist. More narrow definitions limit forensic psychology to applications of clinical psychology to legal matters—typically in the context of evaluating litigants whose mental states are at issue in legal proceedings—whereas broader definitions include applications of all areas of psychology (e.g., clinical, developmental, social, experimental) to legal matters. An example of this narrower scope is provided by the American Psychological Association's definition of forensic psychology as a specialty: “the professional practice by psychologists within the areas of clinical psychology, counseling psychology, neuropsychology, and school psychology, when they are engaged regularly as experts and represent themselves as such, in an activity primarily intended to provide professional psychological expertise to the judicial system” (Heilbrun, 2000, p. 6). In contrast, a broader perspective is provided in the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (American Psychological Association, in press), which define forensic psychology as “professional practice by any psychologist working within any subdiscipline of psychology (e.g., clinical, developmental, social, cognitive) when applying the scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge of psychology to the law to assist in addressing legal, contractual, and administrative matters.” For purposes of this volume forensic psychology is defined broadly as the application of psychological research, theory, practice, and traditional and specialized methodology (e.g., interviewing, psychological testing, forensic assessment, and forensically relevant instruments) for the express purpose of providing assistance to the legal system.

A Brief History of Forensic Psychology

Psychologist Hugo Münsterberg, a student of Wilhelm Wundt and a professor at Harvard University, is generally credited with founding the field of forensic psychology. His landmark book, On the Witness Stand (1908), is comprised of an introduction and eight essays that describe how psychologists could be of assistance to the legal system. Relying in part on his own experience as an expert witness, Münsterberg considered topics as diverse as eyewitness identification, false confessions, hypnosis as a crime prevention measure, and the potential value of precursors of the modern-day polygraph and concluded that it was “astonishing that the work of justice is ever carried out in the courts without ever consulting the psychologist” (p. 194). In response to publication of Münsterberg's text, John Wigmore, a law professor and leading scholar on the law of evidence, published a satirical article in the Illinois Law Review (1909) mocking psychology's potential to assist the legal process. Wigmore's criticisms did have some merit. Münsterberg's book lacked any references, and Bartol and Bartol (1999) described some of his claims as “exaggerated” and “rarely empirically based” (p. 6).

Indeed, Münsterberg's claims for the contributions that psychology could make to the legal system may have been premature since, at the beginning of the 20th century, psychology was in its infancy and certainly lacked sufficient scientific foundation to support the admissibility of “expert” testimony. Thus, despite Münsterberg's impassioned pleas for psychology's involvement in the legal system, his suggestions were largely ignored. However, Münsterberg certainly generated interest in the possibility that someday psychology might make contributions to the judicial process. That Münsterberg saw what is now referred to as forensic psychology as being broadly defined and having the potential to make many contributions to the law is indicated by his observation that psychologists, in addition to providing insights into the characteristics of individuals in particular cases (e.g., witnesses or defendants), could also contribute to what was known about the legal system more generally:

I have written the following popular sketches, which select only a few problems in which psychology and law come in contact. They deal essentially with the mind of the witness on the witness stand; only the last, on the prevention of crime, takes another direction. I have not touched so far the psychology of the attorney, of the judge, or of the jury—problems which lend themselves to very interesting experimental treatment. (Münsterberg, 1908, p. 11)

Around this same time, psychologists and other mental health professionals began providing assistance to the courts in matters of delinquency and dependency, by evaluating children who were the subject of proceedings that were occurring in “juvenile courts”—the first of which was established in Chicago in 1899—and making recommendations for interventions and dispositions. Indeed, some commentators (see, e.g., Otto & Heilbrun, 2002) have observed that this involvement constitutes psychologists' first real contributions to the legal process, and it is the forensic evaluation role that has gone on to define for many what forensic psychology is today.

Because they were not physicians, psychologists were sometimes barred from testifying in legal proceedings on the grounds that they did not have the requisite expertise to testify about matters involving the psychological functioning of litigants and others. However, in 1962, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held in Jenkins v. United States that psychologists could provide expert opinions about mental illness at the time a defendant was alleged to have committed a criminal offense. In the court's opinion, Judge David Bazelon, after reviewing the training and qualifications of psychologists, concluded that physicians were not uniquely qualified to offer expert testimony on matters involving mental disorders, and courts, when considering who should be permitted to provide expert testimony about such issues, should consider factors such as the proferred expert's training, skills, experience, and knowledge. Subsequent to this decision, psychologists entered the courts with increasing frequency and offered expert testimony on a wide range of legal issues.

In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in the public schools violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution (Brown v. Board of Education). In his opinion for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Earl Warren referenced research conducted by psychologists Kenneth and Marie Clark that was offered as evidence by attorneys representing the plaintiffs that racial segregation had deleterious effects on the psychological development and functioning of African American children. Although the value of the Clarks' research and their resulting interpretations have been questioned (see, e.g., Wolters, 2005) the Supreme Court's reference to their work is cited as evidence of the legal system's increasing willingness to look to the expertise of psychologists in matters that go beyond assessment of litigants' mental states. Since that time psychologists have offered what has been referred to as social framework testimony (Monahan & Walker, 2010) in a variety of matters that addresses such diverse topics as the (in)accuracy of eyewitness identification, the biasing effects of pretrial publicity, and consumer confusion in the context of trademark litigation. In addition, other foci of forensic psychology include providing treatment to legally involved populations, researching and consulting with attorneys on matters such as jury selection and case presentation, and studying the legal system and its operation (e.g., efficacy of drug courts, effects of transferring juveniles to criminal court for prosecution and sentencing).

Forensic psychology is unique as a specialty. By its very nature, it operates in another system as its practitioners attempt to provide assistance to attorneys, judges, juries, and the legal system more generally. This practice requires not only an understanding of how the legal system operates, but a working familiarity with statutes and case law that are relevant to the particular issues(s) at hand. At this time, only a minority of psychologists who identify themselves as forensic specialists have completed any kind of formal forensic training at the doctoral level. Rather, most have obtained a doctoral degree in some general specialty (e.g., clinical psychology, developmental psychology, experimental psychology, social psychology) and supplemented this with limited graduate coursework, a postdoctoral fellowship, or continuing education. However, within the past 25 years we have seen development of more focused graduate training in the forensic arena (Packer & Borum, this volume).

Attempts to define forensic psychology as a specialty or subspecialty began in the 1970s. The American Psychology–Law Society was established in 1969 and, shortly thereafter, affiliated with the American Psychological Association as a division. In 1978, the American Board of Forensic Psychology (ABFP) was established to certify psychologists with competence in the forensic area. Shortly thereafter ABFP affiliated with the American Board of Professional Psychology. And, in 2001 the American Psychological Association formally recognized forensic psychology as a specialty.

The Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, which provide guidance for psychologists engaged in forensic pursuits, were first published in 1991 (Committee on Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists), and were subsequently revised and adopted by the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives in 2011 as the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology. In addition, the American Psychological Association and other professional organizations (e.g., American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology, National Academy of Neuropsychology) have published a variety of guidelines and position statements on matters of relevance to forensic psychologists (e.g., statements on impact of third-party observers on examinations, guidelines for conducting child custody and dependency evaluations, guidelines on use of response-style measures in forensic evaluations).

Finally, journals devoted to the area abound (e.g., Law and Human Behavior, Psychology, Public Policy and the Law, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice), and a number of forensic psychology references have been published in their second or third editions (e.g., Grisso, 2003; Melton et al., 2007; Rogers, 2007). Thus, a little more than 100 years after Münsterberg first beseeched attorneys and judges to consider the contributions that psychologists could offer to the legal process, forensic psychology is a vibrant, well established specialty that continues to grow.

Organization of This Volume

Although the activities of forensic psychologists are diverse, the bulk of this volume is focused on forensic assessment activities. The initial section is devoted to professional issues that are of relevance to all forensic pursuits, the second section is concerned with evaluation of persons whose mental state is at issue in criminal proceedings, the third section focuses on evaluation of persons involved in the criminal justice system, the fourth section includes chapters that address a variety of special assessment matters, and the last section is devoted to a variety of nonclinical, nonassessment activities in which forensic psychologists may become involved.

Overview

This section includes three chapters that address overriding issues that are relevant to all forensic practitioners: training in the specialty, the ethical obligations that shape the work of psychologists when engaged in forensic pursuits, and how the law shapes the practice of the specialty and how psychologists communicate their work and findings to the court.

Forensic Training and Practice

Historically, psychologists who specialized in forensic pursuits gained relevant knowledge and skills through on-the-job training and intermittent continuing education. A few texts devoted to forensic psychology practice were published in the 1970s and early 1980s (The Role of the Forensic Psychologist, Cooke, 1973; Who Is the Client?, Monahan, 1980), and a handful of doctoral programs devoted to the intersection of law and psychology were developed around this same time (University of Alabama, University of Nebraska, and Florida State University). Much has changed in the past half century. There are currently a large number of masters, doctoral, internship, and postdoctoral training programs devoted to forensic pursuits (go to www.ap-ls.org/education/GraduatePrograms.php for a listing and description of these programs) and continuing education opportunities abound, including an organized and ongoing program of study offered by the American Academy of Forensic Psychology (go to www.aafp.ws for review of current offerings).

Integral to demonstrating the establishment of a substantive specialty is the existence of training opportunities and a system or systems that allow practitioners to demonstrate their competence in the specialty area. In Chapter 2, Ira Packer and Randy Borum review the roles of social, developmental, cognitive, and clinical psychologists in the field and consider areas of focus, subspecialization, and psycholegal issues addressed by forensic psychologists. They describe graduate training in the field, doctoral programs, and joint degree programs (those that award the PhD or Ps...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Editorial Board
• Handbook of Psychology Preface
• Volume Preface
• Contributors
• Part I: Nature of the Field
• Part II: Forensic Evaluations in Civil Proceedings
• Part III: Forensic Evaluations in Delinquency and Criminal Proceedings
• Part IV: Special Assessment Issues
• Part V: Forensic Consultation
• Author Index
• Subject Index