FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY

CPY 417
• PSYCHOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE APPLICABLE IN
LEGAL ISSUES:
• COURSE OVERVIEW – GENERAL INTRODUCTION
• PRESENTING THE COURSE TO STUDENTS
 FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY
CPY 417
Forensic psychology is the intersection between
psychology and the justice system. It involves
understanding fundamental legal principles,
particularly with regard to expert witness testimony
and the specific content area of concern (e.g.,
competence to stand trial, child custody and
visitation, or workplace discrimination), as well as
relevant jurisdictional considerations (e.g., in the
United States, the definition of insanity in criminal
trials differs from state to state) in order to be able to
interact appropriately with judges, attorneys and
other legal professionals.
 INCAPACITY TO STAND A TRIAL
• In criminal trials, the mental disorder defense or insanity
defense is the claim that the defendant is not responsible
for their actions during an episode of mental illness
(psychiatric illness or mental handicap). Exemption of the
insane from full criminal punishment dates back to at least
the Code of Hammurabi.[1] There are different definitions
of legal insanity, such as the M'Naghten Rules, the
Durham Rule, the American Legal Institute definition, and
various miscellaneous provisions (e.g., relating to lack of
mens rea).[2] In the criminal laws of Australia and Canada,
the terms defence of mental disorder or defence of
mental illness are used.
 DEFENSES

• Idiot defense
• Impossibility defense
• Age of criminal responsibility in Australia
• Defense of infancy
• Innocent owner defense
• Innovative defense
• Mental Disorder (Insanity) Defense
• Intoxication defense
• Irresistible impulse
 CRIMINAL DEFENSE
• The M'Naghten rules (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, McNaughton) were
a reaction to the acquittal in 1843 of Daniel M'Naghten on the charge of
murdering Edward Drummond, whom M'Naghten had mistaken for British
Prime Minister Robert Peel.[1]
• M'Naghten fired a pistol at the back of Peel's secretary, Edward Drummond, who
died five days later. The House of Lords asked a panel of judges, presided over by
Sir Nicolas Conyngham Tindal, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, a series of
hypothetical questions about the defence of insanity. The principles expounded
by this panel have come to be known as the M'Naghten Rules, though they have
gained any status only by usage in the common law and M'Naghten himself
would have been found guilty if they had been applied at his trial.[2][3] The rules
so formulated as M'Naghten's Case 1843 10 C & F 200[4] have been a standard
test for criminal liability in relation to mentally disordered defendants in
common law jurisdictions ever since, with some minor adjustments. When the
tests set out by the Rules are satisfied, the accused may be adjudged "not guilty
by reason of insanity" or "guilty but insane" and the sentence may be a
mandatory or discretionary (but usually indeterminate) period of treatment in a
secure hospital facility, or otherwise at the discretion of the court (depending on
the country and the offence charged) instead of a punitive disposal.
• DANIEL MCNAGHTEN RULE
 THE MATRIX DEFENSE
• The Matrix defense is the term applied to several
legal cases of a defense based on the Matrix films
where reality is actually a computer generation—
simulism—and that the real world is quite
different from what reality is perceived to be.
• In using this defense, the defendant claims that he
committed a crime because he believed he was in
the Matrix, and not in the real world. This is a
version of the insanity defense and considered a
descendant of the Taxi Driver defense of
John Hinckley, one of the first defenses based on
blurring reality with the movies
 MENTAL DISORDER DEFENSE
• In the criminal laws of Australia and Canada, the
defence of mental disorder (sometimes called
the defence of mental illness) is a legal defence
by excuse, by which a defendant may argue they
should not be held criminally liable for breaking
the law because they were mentally ill at the
time of the alleged criminal actions.
 MISTAKE
• A mistake of fact may sometimes mean that,
while a person has committed the physical
element of an offence, because they were
labouring under a mistake of fact, they never
formed the required mens rea, and so will escape
liability for offences that require mens rea. This is
unlike a mistake of law, which is not usually a
defense; law enforcement may or may not take
for granted that individuals know what the law is.
• Because the prosecution in a criminal case must
prove the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt, the defendant must convince
the jury that there is reasonable doubt about
whether the witness actually saw what he or she
claims to have seen, or recalls having seen.
Although scientific studies have shown that
mistaken identity is a common phenomenon,
jurors give very strong credence to
eyewitness testimony, particularly where the
eyewitness is resolute in believing that their
identification of the defendant was correct.
 ABUSE DEFENSE
• The abuse defense is a criminal law defense in
which the defendant argues that a prior history of
abuse justifies violent retaliation. While the term
most often refers to instances of child abuse or
sexual assault, it also refers more generally to any
attempt by the defense to use a syndrome or
societal condition to deflect responsibility away
from the defendant. Sometimes the concept is
referred to as the abuse excuse, in particular by
the critics of the idea that guilty people may use
past victimization to diminish the responsibility for
their crimes.
 ACTUAL INNOCENCE
• Actual innocence is a state of affairs in which
a defendant in a criminal case is innocent of
the charges against them because he or she
did not in fact commit the crime of which they
have been accused.
 ALIBI (DISAMBIGUATION)
• An alibi is a form of defense used in
criminal procedure wherein the accused
attempts to prove that he or she was in some
other place at the time the alleged offense was
committed. The Criminal Law Deskbook of
Criminal Procedure[1] states: "Alibi is different
from all of the other defenses; it is based upon
the premise that the defendant is truly
innocent." In the Latin language alibī means
"somewhere else."
 AMBUSH DEFENSE
• An ambush defence is one in which defence evidence -
notably from expert witnesses - has not been adduced in
advance to the prosecuting authorities, leading to their
inability to rebut it. The term is used in United Kingdom
jurisprudence. Since 1987, the possibility of the ambush
defence has been much reduced by The Crown Court
(Advance Notice of Expert Evidence) Rules 1987, made
under section 81 of the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which in essence
require the defence to provide the prosecution with
copies of expert witness reports in sufficient time for the
prosecution to consider the nature of and if necessary
prepare rebuttal evidence opposing the report.
 AUTOMATISM
• Automatism is a rarely used criminal defence which
denies that the accused was criminally responsible for
his or her actions. There are several limitations to the
defence of automatism in English law. Prior fault
generally excludes automatism. Intoxication generally
excludes automatism, even when involuntary. Any
defence that rests on insanity comes under the
M'Naghten Rules. Under English law internal causes of
automatism are generally judged to be insane
automatism and so result in the special verdict ('not
guilty by reason of insanity') rather than simple
acquittal.
 AUTOMATISM LAW
• Automatism is a rarely used criminal defence. It is one of the mental
condition defences that relate to the mental state of the defendant.
Automatism can be seen variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of
culpability (unconsciousness) or excuse (Schopp). Automatism means that
the defendant was not aware of his or her actions when making the
particular movements that constituted the illegal act. For example, Esther
Griggs in 1858 threw her child out of a first floor window believing that
the house was on fire, whilst having a night terror.[1] Brian Thomas
strangled his wife in their campervan in a more recent case in Aberporth
in an episode of rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder (a disorder
related to sleepwalking), where he dreamed there was an intruder on top
of his wife. The defence of automatism is denying that the person was
acting in the sense that the criminal law demands. As such it is really a
denial-of-proof – the defendant is asserting that the offence is not made
out. The prosecution does not have to disprove the defence as is
sometimes erroneously reported; the prosecution has to prove all the
elements of the offence including the voluntary act requirement.
Automatism is a defence even against strict liability crimes like dangerous
driving, where no intent is necessary.
 DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
• In criminal law, diminished responsibility (or
diminished capacity) is a potential defense by
excuse by which defendants argue that although
they broke the law, they should not be held fully
criminally liable for doing so, as their mental
functions were "diminished" or impaired. The
defense's acceptance in American jurisdictions
varies considerably. The majority of states have
adopted it by statute or case decision, and a
minority even recognise broader defenses such
as 'irresistible impulse'.
 DURESS
• In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a
situation whereby a person performs an act as a
result of violence, threat or other pressure against
the person. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines
duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to
induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they]
otherwise would not [or would]". Duress is pressure
exerted upon a person to coerce that person to
perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not
perform. The notion of duress must be distinguished
both from undue influence in the civil law and from
necessity.
 IDIOT DEFENSE
• The idiot defense is a satirical term for a legal strategy where
a defendant claims innocence by virtue of having been
ignorant of facts of which the defendant would normally be
expected to be aware. Other terms used for this tactic include
"dumb CEO defense," "dummy defense," "ostrich defense,"
and "Sergeant Schultz defense."
• The term was popularized as a result of a number of high-
profile corporate accounting scandal defendants claiming that
all wrongdoing was performed by others, without the
defendant's knowledge or consent. Attorneys for these
defendants claimed that their skill was in valuation and deal-
making, and that they lacked the training to recognize
fraudulent accounting practices they claimed that they would
have needed. However, in many cases the defendants'
subordinates testified that the defendants ordered them to
falsify the accounts.
 IMPOSSIBILITY DEFENSE
• An Impossibility defense is a criminal defense
occasionally used when a defendant is accused of
a criminal attempt that failed only because the
crime was factually or legally impossible to
commit. Factual impossibility is rarely an adequate
defense at common law. In the United States,
thirty-seven states have ruled out factual
impossibility as a defense to the crime of attempt.
This is not to be confused with a 'mistake of fact'
defense, which may be a defense to a specific
intent crime like larceny.
 CRIMINAL AGE

• The age of criminal responsibility in Australia is

the
age below which a child is deemed incapable of
having committed a criminal offence
. In legal terms, it is referred to as a
defense of infancy.
• WHICH IS THE CRIMINAL AGE IN KENYA? 14-18
JUVENILE / 18 AND ABOVE ADULT CRIMINAL
JUSTICE
 DEFENSE OF INFANCY
• The defense of infancy is a form of defense
known as an excuse so that defendants falling
within the definition of an "infant" are
excluded from criminal liability for their
actions, if at the relevant time, they had not
reached an age of criminal responsibility.
After reaching the initial age, there may be
levels of responsibility dictated by age and the
type of offense committed.
 INNOCENT OWNER DEFENSE
• An innocent owner defense is a concept in
United States law providing for an
affirmative defense that applies when an owner
claims that they are innocent of a crime and
therefore their property should not be forfeited. It
is defined in section 983(d) of title 18 of the
United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 983(d)) and is part
of the Code that defines forfeiture laws and more
specifically the general rules for civil forfeiture
proceedings. It states that the "claimant shall have
the burden of proving that the claimant is an
innocent owner by a
preponderance of the evidence".
 MENTAL DISORDER / INSANITY
DEFENSE
• In criminal trials, the mental disorder defense or
insanity defense is the claim that the defendant is
not responsible for their actions during an episode of
mental illness (psychiatric illness or mental
handicap). Exemption of the insane from full criminal
punishment dates back to at least the
Code of Hammurabi.[1] There are different definitions
of legal insanity, such as the M'Naghten Rules, the
Durham Rule, the American Legal Institute definition,
and various miscellaneous provisions (e.g., relating
to lack of mens rea).[2] In the criminal laws of
Australia and Canada, the terms defence of mental
disorder or defence of mental illness are used.
 INTOXICATION DEFENSE
• In criminal law, the intoxication defense is a defense by which a
defendant may claim diminished responsibility on the basis of
substance intoxication. Although general intent crimes do not
require an intent to break the law, just an unlawful act (actus
reus) and an intent to act in such a fashion,[1] specific intent
crimes, such as residential burglary, require a certain mental
state (mens rea) to break the law,[1] and those under the
influence of an intoxicating substance may be considered to have
reduced liability for their actions. Even "voluntary intoxication"
(the knowing and voluntary consumption of alcohol or other
drugs) can be used as a defense to a "specific intent" crime,
whereas only "involuntary intoxication" ("My drink was spiked!")
can be used as a defense to a general intent crime. As for
punishment, intoxication may be a mitigating factor that
decreases a prison or jail sentence.
 IRRESISTABLE IMPULSE
• In criminal law, irresistible impulse is a defense
by excuse, in this case some sort of insanity, in
which the defendant argues that they should not
be held criminally liable for their actions that
broke the law, because they could not control
those actions.
• In 1994, Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty
when her defense argued that an irresistible
impulse led her to cut off her husband's penis.
 JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
• The concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law stands
on the dividing line between an excuse, a justification, and
an exculpation. In certain circumstances, homicide is
justified when it prevents greater harm to innocents. A
homicide can only be justified if there is sufficient
evidence to prove that it was reasonable to believe that
the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life
or well-being of another, in self-defense. To rule a
justifiable homicide, one must objectively prove to a
trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the victim
intended to commit violence. A homicide in this instance
is blameless[1] and distinct from the less stringent criteria
authorizing deadly force in stand your ground rulings.
 FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST
• An important aspect of forensic psychology is the ability to
testify in court as an expert witness, reformulating
psychological findings into the legal language of the
courtroom, providing information to legal personnel in a
way that can be understood. Further, in order to be a
credible witness the forensic psychologist must understand
the philosophy, rules, and standards of the judicial system.
Primary is an understanding of the adversarial system.
There are also rules about hearsay evidence and most
importantly, the exclusionary rule. Lack of a firm grasp of
these procedures will result in the forensic psychologist
losing credibility in the courtroom. A forensic psychologist
can be trained in clinical, social, organizational or any other
branch of psychology.
• An important aspect of forensic psychology is the
ability to testify in court as an expert witness,
reformulating psychological findings into the legal
language of the courtroom, providing information to
legal personnel in a way that can be understood.[1]
Further, in order to be a credible witness the forensic
psychologist must understand the philosophy, rules,
and standards of the judicial system. Primary is an
understanding of the adversarial system. There are
also rules about hearsay evidence and most
importantly, the exclusionary rule. Lack of a firm
grasp of these procedures will result in the forensic
psychologist losing credibility in the courtroom.[2] A
forensic psychologist can be trained in clinical, social,
organizational or any other branch of psychology.
 MISTAKE OF LAW
• Mistake of law is a legal principle referring to one or
more errors that were made by a person in
understanding how the applicable law applied to
their past activity that is under analysis by a court. In
jurisdictions that use the term, it is differentiated
from mistake of fact.
• There is a principle of law that "
ignorance of the law is no excuse". In criminal cases,
a mistake of law is not a recognized defense, though
such a mistake may in very rare instances fall under
the legal category of "exculpation". In criminal cases
a mistake of fact is normally called simply, "mistake".
 MISTAKEN IDENTITY
• Mistaken identity is a defense in criminal law
which claims the actual innocence of the
criminal defendant, and attempts to undermine
evidence of guilt by asserting that any eyewitness
to the crime incorrectly thought that they saw the
defendant, when in fact the person seen by the
witness was someone else. The defendant may
question both the memory of the witness
(suggesting, for example, that the identification is
the result of a false memory), and the perception
of the witness (suggesting, for example, that the
witness had poor eyesight, or that the crime
occurred in a poorly lit place).
 LAWYER
• A lawyer is a person who practices law, as a
barrister, judge, attorney,
counsel (counselor at law) or solicitor or a legal
academic. Working as a lawyer involves the
practical application of abstract legal theories and
knowledge to solve specific individualized
problems, or to advance the interests of those
who hire lawyers to perform legal services.
 DISTINCTION BETWEEN A LAWYER &
AN EXPERT WITNESS
• LAWYER = TRAINED IN LAW AND LEGAL ISSUES
• CAN DEFEND A CLIENT IN COURT / CAN MAKE
REFERENCE TO LEGAL PROVISIONS IN DEFENCE/
LITIGATES/ CHALLENGES THE ADVERSARY/
PLEADS/ SWEARS IN AFFIDAVIT/ HAS LEGAL
PROFESSION AND IS AUTHORISED TO DEFEND A
CLIENT/CAN GIVE LEGAL ADVICE/IS PAID BY THE
CLIENT
• FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST= IS CALLED IN COURT
TO GIVE A SCIENTIFIC ACCOUNT OF THE CRIME/
USES LABORATORY, INTERVIEWS, COUNSELLING/
EMPIRICAL TESTS. SCIENTIFIC METHODS AS PROOF
OF HIS JUDGMENTS/ CANNOT DEFEND A CLIENT
IN COURT/ CANNOT GIVE HIS OPINION/ CAN USE
HEARSAY AS EVIDENCE IN HIS TESTIMONY/ IS
REFERRED TO AS EXPERT WITNESS/ CAN MAKE
REPORT FOR ANY OF THE PARTIES OR FOR THE
COURT/ STICKS TO PROFESSION AND SCIENTIFIC
PROOF/ CAN BE CROSS EXAMINED IN
COURT/MUST BE QUALIFIED IN HIS OR HER FIELD/
IS PAID BY THE CLIENT OR BY COURT FOR THE
WORK DONE/ASSESSES & EVALUATES.
 FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST
• IS A MEDICAL EXPERT IN MENTAL HEALTH
• A FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST AND
PSYCHIATRIST ARE DIFFERENT PROFESSIONS
• PSYCHOLOGIST DEALS WITH PSYCHOLOGICAL
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
• PSYCHIATRIST DEALS WITH DISEASES/
MEDICINE/ OR MENTAL HEALTH IN GENERAL
 EXPERT WITNESS
• Unlike fact witnesses, who are limited to testifying about
what they know or have observed, expert witnesses have the
ability to express opinion because, as their name suggests,
they are presumed to be "experts" in a certain topic. They
possess specialized knowledge about the topic. Expert
witnesses are called upon to testify on matters of mental
health (clinical expertise) or other areas of expertise such as
social, experimental, cognitive, or developmental.[8] The role
of being an expert witness is not primary and it is usually
performed in conjunction with another role such as that of
researcher, academic, evaluator, or clinical psychologist.
Clinical forensic psychologists evaluate a defendant and are
then called upon as expert witnesses to testify on the mental
state of the defendant.[7]
• In the past, expert witnesses primarily served the court
rather than the litigants
 TREATMENT PROVIDER
• Treatment providers are forensic psychologists who administer
psychological intervention or treatment to individuals in both criminal and
civil cases who require or request these services. In criminal proceedings,
treatment providers may be asked to provide psychological interventions
to individuals who require treatment for the restoration of competency,
after having been determined by the courts as incompetent to stand trial.
[7] They may be asked to provide treatment for the mental illness of those

deemed insane at the crime.[7] They may also be called to administer

treatment to minimize the likelihood of future acts of violence for
individuals who are at a high risk of committing a violent offense.[7] As for
civil proceedings, treatment providers may have to treat families going
through divorce and/or custody cases. They may also provide treatment to
individuals who have suffered psychological injuries due to some kind of
trauma.[7] Treatment providers and evaluators work in the same types of
settings: forensic and state psychiatric hospitals, mental health centers,
and private practice. Not surprisingly, their work may greatly overlap. And
although not ethically encouraged, the same forensic psychologist may
take on both the role of treatment provider and evaluator for the same
client
 FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST PRACTICE
• Forensic psychology practice 3.1 Malingering
• 3.2 Competency evaluations
• 3.3 Sanity evaluations
• 3.4 Other evaluations
• 3.5 Ethical implications
 ASSESSMENTS & EVALUATIONS
• MALINGERING: An important and pressing
question in any type of forensic assessment is
the issue of malingering and deception. In
some criminal cases, the court views
malingering or feigning illness as obstruction
of justice and sentences the defendant
accordingly
• COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS: If there is a question of the
accused's competency to stand trial, a forensic
psychologist is appointed by the court to examine and
assess the individual. The individual may be in custody or
may have been released on bail. Based on the forensic
assessment, a recommendation is made to the court
whether or not the defendant is competent to proceed to
trial. If the defendant is considered incompetent to
proceed, the report or testimony will include
recommendations for the interim period during which an
attempt at restoring the individual's competency to
understand the court and legal proceedings, as well as
participate appropriately in their defense will be made.
Often, this is an issue of committed, on the advice of a
forensic psychologist, to a psychiatric treatment facility
until such time as the individual is deemed competent
 SANITY EVALUATION
• The forensic psychologist may also be appointed
by the court to evaluate the defendant's state of
mind at the time of the offense. These are
defendants who the judge, prosecutor or public
defender believe, through personal interaction
with the defendant or through reading the police
report, may have been significantly impaired at
the time of the offense.
 OTHER EVALUATION
• Forensic psychologists are frequently asked to make an
assessment of an individual's dangerousness or risk of re-
offending. They may provide information and
recommendations necessary for sentencing purposes, grants
of probation, and the formulation of conditions of parole,
which often involves an assessment of the offender's ability
to be rehabilitated. They are also asked questions of witness
credibility and malingering.Occasionally, they may also
provide criminal profiles to law enforcement.
• Due to the Supreme Court decision upholding involuntary
commitment laws for predatory sex offenders in Kansas v.
Hendricks, it is likely that forensic psychologists will become
involved in making recommendations in individual cases of
end-of-sentence civil commitment decisions.
 IDENTIFYING A SUSPECT
• Crime is a major problem in many areas, particularly densely
populated areas. As much as we may wish for peaceful, crime-
free lives, this is most likely not going to happen anytime soon.
Punishing criminals or preventing them from committing crimes
in the first place is typically necessary for protecting ordinary
citizens from crime.
• Forensic psychology often plays a role in punishing and
preventing crimes. The word forensic is defined as "the scientific
method for investigation of crime". Forensic psychology is often
described as the merger of law and psychology.
• This field of psychology is often focused on the criminals
themselves. Professionals in this field are often given the
ominous responsibilities of trying to figure out why certain types
of people commit crimes; what type of person committed a
crime; and how to prevent people from committing crimes.
 PSYCHOLOGIST IN COURTROOM
Jenkins v. United States
• In a trial for housebreaking, assault and intent to rape, a
defendant presented the testimony of three clinical psychologists
in support of an insanity defense. All three psychologists testified,
based on their personal contact with the defendant, review of his
case history and standard psychological tests, that on the date the
alleged crimes were committed, defendant had been suffering
from schizophrenia. One of the three testified that he could give
no opinion concerning the relationship between the illness and the
crimes but the other two gave opinions that the two were related
and that the crimes were the product of the illness. At the
conclusion of the trial, the judge instructed the jury to disregard
the opinions of the psychologists in that psychologists were not
qualified to give expert testimony on the issue of mental disease.
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded, and held that
psychologists were qualified as expert witnesses on the question
of mental disease. (IN 1962)
 APA’S POSITION
• APA submitted an amicus brief arguing that: (1)
psychology is an established science; (2) the
practice of psychology is a learned profession; (3)
a clinical psychologist is competent to express
professional opinions concerning the existence or
non-existence of mental disease or defect and
their causal relationship to overt behavior; and (4)
experience is the essential legal ingredient of
competence to give an expert opinion.
 THERE ARE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF
FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY
• You will complete the twelve modules listed
below. This course shall cover the first five
modules which cover the theoretical basis of
forensic psychology across a range of settings,
through all stages of the criminal justice process,
i.e. from investigation to punishment and through
care, and as applied to a broad range of crimes
and how the law handles psychology.
• Other modules are covered by other units and
lecturers with expertise.
1. PSYCHOLOGY & CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR

• Psychology and Criminal Behaviour

• What is criminal behaviour?
• measurement of crime,
• who commits crime?
• theories of crime,
• alternative theories of crime.
2. PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE

• Psychology in the Criminal Justice System

• Eyewitness testimony,
• children and vulnerable witnesses/suspects,
• legal decision making,
• confessions and identification,
• recovered memory.
3. TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS & VICTIMS
• Treatment of Offenders and Victims
• Theory of criminal and civil justice responses to
crime,
• what works when rehabilitating offenders?
• prison, secure units and therapeutic
communities,
• restorative justice,
• responses to juvenile and female offenders,
• victim issues.
 4. APPLIED POLICE PSYCHOLOGY
• Applied Police Psychology
• Psychology and policing
• crime analysis,
• offender profiling,
• geographic profiling
• psychological autopsy
• hostage and crisis negotiation.
 5. VIOLENT & SEXUAL CRIME
• Violent and Sexual Crime
• Theories of violent and sexual crime,
• child sexual abuse and rape,
• domestic violence,
• homicide,
• stalking,
• terrorism.
 6. RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
OF OFFENDERS

• Risk Assessment and Management of Offenders

• Assessment of risk and protective factors,
• forensic risk assessment approaches
• risk assessment methods and tools
• risk management strategies
• linking of risk assessment and risk management.
7. PRACTICE & APPLICATION IN FORENSIC
PSYCHOLOGY
• Practice and Application in Forensic Psychology
• Report writing and presentation skills,
• other practitioner skills,
• consultancy and project management,
• ethical codes of conduct,
• legal and social considerations,
• other practice based issues.
 9. ADVANCED QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
METHODS
• Advanced Qualitative Research Methods
• The quantitative-qualitative debate,
• thematic analysis,
• interpretive phenomenological analysis,
• discourse analysis.
 8. ADVANCED QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
METHODS
• Advanced Quantitative Research Methods
• Review of basic research methods and SPSS,
• experimental (and quasi) designs,
• psychometric techniques, questionnaire designs
and scaling,
• ANOVA, MANOVA, multiple regression, SEM and
path analysis
 STUDY SKILL

• Study Skills, Project Planning and Ethics

• Academic essay writing,
• Academic dishonesty and plagiarism,
• Referencing,
• Research design and ethics,
• Reflective practice.
 DISSERTATION
• Dissertation
• Empirical work on a forensic psychology topic,
• production of literature review and empirical
research papers in format suitable for journal
article publication.
 END OF INTRODUCTION
• NOW WE SHALL SWITCH TO OUR TOPIC.