Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T22:50:43.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 28 - Tipping the Scales Of Justice: The Role of Forensic Evaluations in the Criminalization of Mental Illness

from Part V - Criminal Justice and Social Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2021

By
Katherine E. McCallum  and
W. Neil Gowensmith
Edited by
Katherine Warburton  and
Stephen M. Stahl
Katherine Warburton
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Stephen M. Stahl
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

For psychologists or psychiatrists conducting forensic evaluations, a forensic psychological report is a work product – one of many reports they will author over the course of their careers. Many forensic evaluators conduct a large number of evaluations per year; for example, Colorado state evaluators conduct an average of 144 competency to stand trial (CST) evaluations per year. For psychologists or psychiatrists who author a large volume of evaluations, some cases may seem routine. Evaluators may fall into a pattern in which many evaluations appear mundane and typical.

Type
Chapter
Information
Decriminalizing Mental Illness , pp. 281 - 288
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Center for Legal Advocacy v. Bicha et al., U.S. District Court of Colorado, Case No. 1:2011cv02285. 2011.Google Scholar
Redding, RE, Murrie, DC. Judicial decision making about forensic mental health evidence. In: Goldstein, AM, ed. Forensic Psychology: Emerging Topics and Expanding Roles. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2007: 683–707.Google Scholar
Acklin, MW, Fuger, K, Gowensmith, WN. Examiner agreement and judicial consensus in forensic mental health evaluations. J Forensic Psychol Pract. 2015; 15(4): 318–343.Google Scholar
Gowensmith, WN, Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT. Field reliability of competence to stand trial opinions: how often do evaluators agree, and what do judges decide when evaluators disagree? Law Hum Behav. 2012; 36(2): 130–139.Google Scholar
Zapf, PA, Hubbard, KL, Cooper, VG, et al. Have the courts abdicated their responsibility for determination of competency to stand trial to clinicians? J Forensic Psychol Pract. 2004; 4(1): 27–44.Google Scholar
Cruise, KR, Rogers, R. An analysis of competency to stand trial: an integration of case law and clinical knowledge. Behav Sci Law. 1998; 16(1): 35–50.Google Scholar
Mowen, E. Charges dismissed in crash which claimed family. Register Herald. July 7, 2018. www.registerherald.com/news/22514/charges-dismissed-in-crash-which-claimed-family (accessed June 2020).Google Scholar
Eaton, E. Man who killed Elmendorf police chief found not guilty by reason of insanity. San Antonio Express News. July 2, 2018. www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Man-who-killed-Elemendorf-police-chief-found-not-13044383.php (accessed June 2020).Google Scholar
Gowensmith, WN. Resolution or resignation: the role of forensic mental health professionals amidst the competency services crisis. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2019; 25(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Locklair, B. Due process problems with civil commitment of incompetent defendants: the current round of litigation and the next. Presentation to the American Psychology-Law Society annual conference; 2016, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Bryson, CN, Boccaccini, MT, Gowensmith, WN, et al. Does time matter in competency to stand trial evaluations? Presentation to the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society; March 2019, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
Gowensmith, WN, Metroz, H, Bratcher, J. The impact of timing on competency to stand trial evaluations. Presentation to the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society; March 2016, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Nguyen, AH, Acklin, MW, Fuger, K, et al. Freedom in paradise: quality of conditional release reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2011; 34(5): 341–348.Google Scholar
Robinson, R, Acklin, MW. Fitness in paradise: quality of forensic reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2010; 33: 131–137.Google Scholar
Boccaccini, MT, Chevalier, CS, Murrie, DC, et al. Psychopathy – checklist revised use and reporting practices in sexually violent predator evaluations. Sex Abuse. 2017; 29(6): 592–614.Google Scholar
Parker, G. Come see the bias inherent in the system! J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2016; 44(4): 411–414.Google Scholar
Chevalier, CS, Boccaccini, MT, Murrie, DC, et al. Static-99R reporting practices in sexually violent predator cases: does norm selection reflect adversarial allegiance? Law Hum Behav. 2015; 39(3): 209–218.Google Scholar
McCallum, KE, MacLean, N, Gowensmith, WN. The impact of defendant ethnicity on the psycho-legal opinion of forensic evaluators. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2014; 39: 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT, Guarnera, LA, et al. Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychol Sci. 2013; 24(10): 1889–1897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, M, Zapf, PA, et al. Clinician variation in findings of competence to stand trial. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2008; 14: 177–193.Google Scholar
Murrie, DC, Warren, JI. Clinician variation in rates of legal sanity opinions: implications for self-monitoring. Prof Psychol. 2005; 36: 519–524.Google Scholar
Hagen, MA. Whores of the Court: the Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice. New York, NY, US: Harper Collins Publishers; 1997.Google Scholar
Bergeron, ML. The use of psychiatric expertise in the forensic context: balm or blunder. Windsor Yearb Access Justice. 1994; 14: 221.Google Scholar
Faust, D, Ziskin, J. The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry. Science. 1988; 241(4861): 31–35.Google Scholar
Melton, GB, Petrila, J, Poythress, NG, et al. Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers, 3rd edn. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2007.Google Scholar
Warren, JI, Chuahan, P, Kois, L, et al. Factors influencing 2260 opinions of defendants’ restorability to adjudicative competency. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2013; 19: 498–508.Google Scholar
Fitch, WL. Assessment #3. Forensic mental health services in the United States: 2014. (Report No. 3, HHSS2834200IT). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors; 2014.Google Scholar
Wisconsin Department of Health Services. 2015 annual report. (Report No. P-00568). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Health Services; 2015.Google Scholar
Joint Legislative and Audit Review Committee. State of Washington Final Report: Competency to stand trial, phase II (Report No. 14–1). Olympia, WA: Joint Legislative and Audit Review Committee; 2014.Google Scholar
Colorado Department of Human Services Office of Behavioural Health. Needs analysis: current status, strategic positioning, and future planning. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education Mental Health Program; April 2015.Google Scholar
Sewall, A. L.A. County supervisors order report on unexplained surge in mental competency cases. Los Angeles Times; March 8, 2016. www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-mental-competency-cases-20160308-story.html (accessed June 2020).Google Scholar
Gowensmith, WN, Murrie, DC, Packer, IK. Report in Response to the Trueblood v. State Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services. Olympia, WA: Office of Attorney General, State of Washington; 2015.Google Scholar
Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink. No. 02–35530, 9th Cir.; 2003.Google Scholar
Trueblood v. State of Washington Department of Human and Social Services. No. 2:2014cv01178, Washington Western District Court; 2015.Google Scholar
Pirelli, G, Gottdiener, WH, Zapf, PA. A meta-analytic review of competency to stand trial research. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2011; 17(1): 1–53.Google Scholar
Roskes, personal communication, December 12, 2014.Google Scholar
Bryson, CN, Boccaccini, MT, Gowensmith, WN, et al. Time matters in competency to stand trial evaluations. Presentation to the American Psychology-Law Society annual meeting; March 2018, Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
Skeem, JL, Golding, SL, Cohn, NB, et al. Logic and reliability of evaluations of competence to stand trial. Law Hum Behav. 1998; 22(5): 519–547.Google Scholar
Gowensmith, WN, Pinals, DA, Karas, AC. States’ standards for training and certifying evaluators of competency to stand trial. J Forensic Psychol Pract. 2015; 15(4): 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrella, RC, Poythress, NG. The quality of forensic evaluations: an interdisciplinary study. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983; 51(1): 76–85.Google Scholar
Poythress, NG, Otto, RK, Heilbrun, K. Pretrial evaluations for criminal courts: contemporary models of service delivery. J Ment Health Adm. 1991; 18: 198–208.Google Scholar
Kois, L, Pearson, J, Chauhan, P, et al. Competency to stand trial among female inpatients. Law Hum Behav, 2013; 37(4): 231–240.Google Scholar
Mossman, D, Noffsinger, SG, Ash, P, et al. AAPL practice guideline for the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2007; 35: S3–S72.Google Scholar
Pinals, DA, Tillbrook, CE, Mumley, DL. Practical application of the MacArthur competence assessment tool – criminal adjudication (MacCAT-CA) in a public sector forensic setting. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2006; 34: 179–188.Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 405 U.S. 597 (1993).Google Scholar
Boccaccini, MT, Turner, D, Murrie, DC. Do some evaluators report consistently higher or lower psychopathy scores than others?: findings from a state wide sample of sexually violent predator evaluations. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2008; 14: 262–283.Google Scholar
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).Google Scholar
Mossman, D. When forensic examiners disagree: bias, or just inaccuracy? Psychol Public Policy Law. 2013; 19(1): 40–55.Google Scholar
Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT, Turner, D, et al. Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation? Psychol Public Policy Law. 2009; 15: 19–53.Google Scholar
Callahan, LA, Silver, E. Factors associated with the conditional release of persons acquitted by reason of insanity: a decision tree approach. Law Hum Behav. 1998; 22: 147–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gowensmith, WN, Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT. Field reliability of competence to stand trial opinions: how often do evaluators agree, and what do judges decide when evaluators disagree? Law Hum Behav. 2012; 36(2): 130–139.Google Scholar
Dror, IE, Murrie, DC. A hierarchy of expert performance applied to forensic psychological assessments. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2018; 24(1): 11–23.Google Scholar
Mossman, D, Bowen, MD, Vanness, DJ, et al. Quantifying the accuracy of forensic examiners in the absence of a “gold standard”. Law Hum Behav. 2010; 34(5): 402–417.Google Scholar
Gowensmith, WN, Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT, et al. Field reliability influences field validity: risk assessments of individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity. Psychol Assess. 2017; 29(6): 786–794.Google Scholar
Gowensmith, WN, Sledd, M, Sessarego, S. The impact of stringent certification standards on forensic evaluator reliability: further analysis. Paper presented at: The Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society; March 2015; San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
National Judicial College. Mental competencies: best practices model. 2011–2012. www.mentalcompetency.org/pdf/BP-Model.pdf (accessed June 2020).Google Scholar
Gowensmith, WN, McCallum, KE. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the least biased of them all?: dangers and potential solutions regarding bias in forensic psychological evaluations. S Afr J Psychol. 2019; 49(2): 165–176.Google Scholar
Pronin, E, Kugler, MB. Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: the introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2007; 43(4): 565–578.Google Scholar
Neal, T, Grisso, T. The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2014; 20(2): 200–211.Google Scholar
Brodsky, SL. Testifying in Court: Guidelines and Maxims for the Expert Witness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1991.Google Scholar
Brodsky, SL. The Expert Expert Witness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1999.Google Scholar
Gowensmith, WN, McCallum, KE, Nadkarni, L, et al. Monitoring potential bias within a forensic evaluation agency. Paper presented at: The Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society; March 2019; Portland, OR.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×