PSY 6920 Week 5 Methodology of Forensic Evaluations

docx

School

Capella University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

6920

Subject

Information Systems

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CaptainMantisMaster253

Methodologies for Forensic Evaluations Unit 5 Assignment: Methodologies for Forensic Evaluations Jordan Kuhs Capella University 1

Methodologies for Forensic Evaluations Forensic evaluations are ordered by both civil and criminal courts. Child custody and parental fitness evaluations are typically civil matters, whereas competency evaluations and assessments to determine insanity, risk and recidivism take place within the criminal courts. In this assignment, I will discuss five types of forensic evaluations: competency to stand trial, child custody, parental fitness, mitigation of penalty, and recidivism potential of sexual violence. This assignment will also include the legal key questions involved in each evaluation, the chosen methodology, and why the chosen methodology is appropriate for the specified type of evaluation. 2

Methodologies for Forensic Evaluations Competency to Stand Trial is centered around the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees criminal defendants the right to be represented by effective counsel; the right to a public trial in a timely manner that does not involve unnecessary delay; the right to an impartial jury; and the right to know who their accusers are and confront them, and to present evidence and understand the charges against them. If a defendant is not mentally competent, they are unable to understand what is happening to them and the court process, such as helping with their defense and discovering evidence that may be helpful (McLaughlin & Kan, 2014). Competency to stand trial evaluations focus on the present mental state of the defendant and require specific assessment of the defendant’s ability to demonstrate an understanding of the legal process, and the ability to consult with their legal team in a manner that is rational and factual. Dusky v. United States in the United State Supreme Court set forth the standard in defining competence to stand trial procedures with various components (Melton et al., 2016). First is the two parts of the competence test: 1. The defendant’s ability to understand the criminal process, both generally as well as in their specific case. 2. The capability of the defendant to function in the legal process by assisting council and in preparing their defense. Secondly, the emphasis is placed on the defendant’s “present” ability to consult with their legal team and understand the legal proceedings. Third, the focus is placed on the defendant’s “willingness” to understand the legal proceedings and to consult with their legal team. Fourth, the defendant possesses a degree of understanding that is “reasonable” in nature. Lastly, emphasizing whether a level of “rational” and “factual” understanding is present or absent. This includes the presence of mental disorder and the level at which the mental disorder impairs the defendant’s thought process. The methodology best utilized in these types of evaluations are screening instruments such as the ‘Competency Screening Test’ where the legal questions involve sentence completion in order to gauge the level of comprehension: “When I go to court, the lawyer will…”, “When they tell me that a man is innocent until proven guilty, I…”. The ‘Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI)’ consists of a semi-structured interview that results in the responses/answers computing on a 5- point Likert rating (1 = total incapacity, 5 = no capacity). The ‘Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised (ECST-R) was formed from empirical studies and include component measures: Consult with Council, Factual Understanding of the Courtroom Proceedings, and 3

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Methodologies for Forensic Evaluations Rational Understanding of the Courtroom Proceedings, and a discreet brief measure of Atypical Presentation to screen for the possibility of feigning (Melton et al., 2016). Questions to ask the defendant to assess competency (Melton et al., 2005): 1. Do you know what you’re being charged with? 2. Do you know why you’re being charged with these charges? 3. Do you know why you’re in jail? 4. Have you talked to your attorney about your charges? 5. Do you like your attorney? 6. Do you want to get off (of these charges)? 7. Do you think you’re innocent? 8. If your lawyer wanted you to testify, would you? 9. Do you hear voices of people that aren’t there? 10. What do you think happens at a trial? 11. Would you be willing to talk about your mental illness? 12. If it got you off these charges? 13. Do you know where you are right now? Mitigation of penalty is an evaluation assessment if the defendant’s mental state at the time the crime was committed. This evaluation is to determine if the penalty will result in punishment of the defendant. Case studies are the most efficient methodology for completing child custody evaluations and entail an in-depth information gathering process from a variety of sources. 4

Methodologies for Forensic Evaluations When it comes to the differences between Clinical and Forensic Assessments, I previously had no idea that there was a difference. Now that I know the differences, it makes perfect sense as to why those differences. When factoring in the purpose of Clinical and Forensic assessments, clinical assessments are geared more towards diagnosis and treatment needs; forensic assessments incorporate more of the legal system, where clinical matters are only sometimes considered. In clinical settings, there is the establishment of a therapeutic relationship; where the therapist is interested in the psychological well- being and of treating the client’s impairments. In Forensic evaluations, there is no therapeutic relationship and it is made clear in the informed consent that there is a distinction between the two types of assessments and the importance in the client fully understanding the difference. Forensic assessments are usually ordered by the court, or when a forensic psychologist is hired by an individual in a legal proceeding. Clinical assessments are typically based completely on a voluntary nature; where the client contacts the therapists’ office seeking therapeutic help. Forensic assessments can be of a small timeframe from start to finish, or can take months to complete. Clinical assessments may take a short time at the beginning of the first and/or second sessions of therapy, but the therapy sessions can go on for even years. The client’s perspective in a clinical setting is highly regarded, whereas in a forensic setting, the client’s perspective is never part of the process. Forensic assessments are usually done in an involuntary status, at the request of a judge or employer for example. Clinical therapy is almost always done voluntarily. The objectives in forensic evaluations are at the discretion of the evaluator and the relevant laws; people seeking therapeutic help often play a big role regarding the process because it is important for them to have control over their healing and progress. There is also a great element of empathy in clinical therapeutic settings, but in Forensic settings the opposite couldn’t be more true. In therapy, the setting is usually the therapists’ office space that is set up to be peaceful and welcoming, with the schedule set by the patient and therapists for convenience. Forensic evaluations can be done according to the court’s schedule, and may not be convenient for either party. The setting can also not be ideal, taking place in the 5

Methodologies for Forensic Evaluations client’s home during parent fitness testing for example, or in a prison regarding an assessment ordered by the criminal court. References: American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology. American Psychologist. (68)(1), 7-19. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/forensic-psychology.pdf Fisher, C. (2023). Decoding The Ethics Code: A Practical Guide for Psychologists. Sage Publications, inc. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Otto, R. K., Mossman, D., & Condie, L. O. (2017). Psychological evaluations for the courts, fourth edition: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers . Guilford Publications. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law . (2014). Vol 42, Issue 4. Pages S3-S76 6

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version