Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Forensic Psychology PDF
Forensic Psychology PDF
Forensic Psychology PDF
Forensic Psychology is in fact the juncture between psychology and the criminal justice
system. It comprises of understanding the fundamental legal principles, mainly with
respect to expert witness testimony and the particular content area of concern like
competence to stand trial. A vital part of forensic psychology is the capacity to give
evidence in court as an expert witness, reforming psychological outcomes into the legal
language of the courtroom, giving information to legal persons in a manner that can be
understood.
The domain of criminology is enormous, comprising any field or practice that overlaps
with the scientific study of crime and criminality.
An American, James McKeen Cattell is considered to have started the work in the field of
forensic psychology. He conducted his early studies in 1893 at Columbia University.
Cattell’s research ignited the interests of other psychologists. Cattell conducted his
informal and preliminary study, it was reasonably well established that eyewitness
accounts of events were unreliable and incomplete. Cattell himself was surprised at both
the degree of inaccuracy he discovered and the wide range of individual differences in the
levels of confidence expressed by the students. Cattell’s study probably was the genesis
of modern forensic psychology. Joseph Jastrow replicated Cattell’s experiment at the
University of Wisconsin and obtained similar results.
Most significant for the historical development of forensic psychology was the apparent
fascination of Cattell’s experiment and Binet’s work held for William Stern, who had
received his doctorate in psychology at the University of Berlin under the tutelage of
Hermann Ebbinghaus. In 1901, Stern collaborated with the criminologist F V Liszt in an
attempt to advance realism to the Cattell design. In 1901, William Stern teamed up with a
criminologist on an exciting research that additionally displayed the level of
impreciseness in eyewitness accounts. Based on his research, Stern made a variety of
conclusions, including: suggestive questions could compromise the accuracy of
eyewitness reports; major dissimilarities between adult and child eyewitnesses and the
happenings that ensue between the new event and its recollection can intensely affect
memory.
In the meantime psychologists also started testifying in court as expert witnesses. The
first example of this was in Germany. In 1896, Albert von Schrenck-Notzing had given
view evidence in the trial of a man suspect of assassinating three women. The case
acknowledged a lot of press coverage. According to Schrenck- Notzing, ‘the shocking
pretrial anxious witnesses’ memories because they were unable to separate their own
original accounts with the press reports. He substantiated his opinion with psychological
research. In 1906, a defense attorney asked German psychologist Hugo Munsterberg to
evaluate his imprisoned client’s inquiry and trial records. The client had confessed to
murder but then denied. Munsterberg assumed that the man, who was psychologically
incapacitated, was perhaps not guilty, and he was cynical about how the confession was
obtained. Unfortunately, the judge rejected to analyze the case and the man was executed.
This was one of the proceedings that provoked Munsterberg to publish On the Witness
Stand in 1908. In it, he clarified that psychology was significant in the courtroom, how
proposal could generate false retentions and why eyewitness testimony was considered
untrustworthy.
Questions enquired by the court of a forensic psychologist are usually not questions
concerning psychology but are legal inquiries and the reaction must be in language the
court understands. For instance, a forensic psychologist is often selected by the court to
assess a defendant's competence to stand trial. The court also regularly appoints a
forensic psychologist to evaluate the state of mind of the respondent at the time of the
offense. This is said to an assessment of the defendant's sanity or insanity (which relates
to criminal responsibility) at the time of the crime. These are not mainly psychological
questions but slightly legal ones. Thus, a forensic psychologist should be able to decipher
mental information into a lawful structure. Forensic psychologists may be entitled to
make available pass judgment references, treatment references or any other facts the
judge desires, such as information regarding mitigating factors, assessment of future risk
and evaluation of witness credibility.
The roles of forensic psychologists in these contexts can be broad and varied. At a micro
level, their work can involve conducting and reporting the results of psychological
assessments or conducting case-specific research, both with the intent of providing case-
relevant knowledge to the legal decision maker that it would not otherwise have, so that
more informed and better decisions are made.
5.1 Malingering
A prevailing subject in any kind of forensic evaluation is the subject of malingering and
deception. Subject may deliberately overstress or simulate mental disorder symptoms.
The forensic psychologist must always keep this possibility in mind. If the forensic
psychologist has the chance to witness the subject across time and in different settings,
the likelihood that he or she will notice dishonesty likely increases as usually have
trouble upholding false symptoms consistently over time and across situations. In some
criminal cases, the court opinions malingering or pretending illness as obstacle of justice
and sentences the defendant accordingly.
Durham Rule: An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the
product of mental disease of mental defect. An act is the product of a disease if it
would not have occurred except for the disease or defect.
ALI Test: It is a test established by the Model Penal Code which provides that a
defendant would not be criminally responsible for conduct if as a result of mental
disease or defect or he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the
wrongfulness of his conduct or to follow his conduct to the necessities of law.
Even in circumstances where the perpetrator's mental disorder does not encounter the
criteria for a not- guilty by cause of insanity protection, the defendant's state of mind at
the time, as well as relevant past history of mental disorder and psychological abuse can
be used to attempt a mitigation of sentence. The forensic psychologist's assessment and
report is a significant component in giving evidence for verdict mitigation. Precisely, the
court stated that such analysis must comprise associates of the defendant's instantaneous
and prolonged family, medical history, and family and social history including physical
and mental abuse, domestic violence, experience to traumatic events and criminal
violence.
All psychologists are guided by the Moral Principles and Code of Conduct, published by
the American Psychological Association and recently revised in 2002. The ethical
exercise of forensic psychology is also told by the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic
Psychologists published in 1991. Psychologists practicing forensic psychology can use
these two documents to help explain ethical queries. Nevertheless, the likelihood of
ethical dilemmas should be a constant concern for forensic psychologists. The actual
nature of the training of psychology in the legal arena can lead to ethical conflicts.
As with the profession of psychology, the legal professional also required to stick to to
ethical standards. The ethical morals for the practice of law can at times be in direct
conflict with the ethical practice of forensic psychology. Lawyers must be their
customer’s advocate and are expected to zealously represent their client, but a
psychologist should not coach the subject how to answer psychological test questions.
Besides this, there are important differences between the ethical practice of forensic
psychology and the ethical practice of clinical psychology.
7. Summary