PSY 6920 Week 5 Assignment Methodology of Forensic Evaluations

docx

School

Capella University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

6920

Subject

Psychology

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CaptainMantisMaster253

Forensic Evaluations and Methodology Unit 5 Assignment: Five types of Forensic Evaluations, Legal Constructs, and Chosen Methodology Jordan Kuhs Capella University 1

Forensic Evaluations and Methodology Forensic evaluations are ordered within 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. Forensic evaluators use a variety of standardized assessment measures, to include traditional clinical instruments designed for use within forensic assessments to address psychological-legal constructs in order to assist the trier of the fact. 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

Forensic Evaluations and Methodology 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, which are chosen due to the quick nature in identifying those defendant’s whose abilities related to competence may be lacking (Melton et al., 2018). 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) 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

Forensic Evaluations and Methodology was formed from empirical studies and include component measures: Consult with Council, Factual Understanding of the Courtroom Proceedings, and 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). The MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool for Criminal Adjudication was designed specifically for use in forensic evaluations. In this test, the examinees respond to questions hypothetically speaking regarding two men involved in a serious assault case where the examiner’s responses are scored to measure understanding and reasoning (Archer 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? Child custody evaluations are one of the several issues addressed in family law proceedings and involve a legal/physical custody disagreement regarding decision making, caretaking, and access to the child(ren) (APA, 2010). Custody evaluations are not necessarily concerned with the parenting abilities, but more so encompass the end goal of resolution, with the utmost importance on the best interest of the child at the forefront. These evaluations typically are done in civil court and are typically referred by the judge who is overseeing the case. (Terry & Lecci, 2022). According to the American Psychological Association, (2010), the soundest custody evaluations focus on skills, values, deficits, and tendencies that are directly pertinent to the attributes of parenting as well as the addressing the child’s psychological needs. These types of evaluations involve numerous data gathering methods such as behavioral observation, psychological testing, 4

Forensic Evaluations and Methodology and clinical interviews. The evaluator will also obtain valuable and reliable documentation from schools, medical/health care hospitals/clinics, child care agencies, and any other relatable sources. Collateral sources to include extended family, friends, coworkers, acquaintances, and other relevant persons. If there is third-party information that can be corroborated and documented, then that information will also be utilized (APA, 2010). Comprehensive observation and interviewing of the parents and children, and gathering relevant information of interview and archival information of third-party resources is the most highly recommended and chosen form of methodology. The reasoning behind this chosen method is due to the encompassing of crucial information gathered and applied that answers the referral question(s). In identifying the precise referral question, each case is significantly different. Specific referral questions may be: 1. What are the developmental needs of the children and their different stages? 2. What is the best strategy to educate the children on parental separation/marital termination when factoring in various ages? 3. Ways in which the children can be best supported, with the effects of separation/divorce on the children greatly minimized as much as possible? 4. How will the parents address resistance to the parenting plan? What are the pro’s and con’s of different parenting plans? 5. How can each parent best support the child(ren)’s relationship with the other parent? 6. What is the impact on separating siblings? (Melton et al., 2018) Parental fitness evaluations are conducted to evaluate the competency in caring for a child and should be functional and wide-ranging. The evaluation involves interviewing the parents, interviewing the child, and observing the child(ren) and parent(s) together; collecting pertinent records regarding utilized agency resources, police reports, past treatment records, etc. The methodology used focuses not solely on psychology, but on assessing the relationships outside of the immediate family to measure, determine, and enhance social support for the family, as well as the reciprocation of social support between families. The main key points in parental fitness evaluations are the degree in which the situation can be improved, the adjustment of the child, and the sufficiency of services available (Melton, et al., 2018). These evaluations are often 5

Forensic Evaluations and Methodology accompanied by psychological assessments, such as the MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) and the WAIS-IV (Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV). When there are allegations of abuse or neglect etc., a government agency may intervene in order to protect the child, which may result in criminal charges being filed. These evaluations typically involve the criminal court, and are part of the process of an intervention by a government agency when, for example, there are allegations of child abuse and/or neglect. Cognitive functioning as well as psychopathology are assessed and are crucial to the answer responses of referral questions, such as questions about neglect, when substance abuse for example is secondary (Terry & Lecci, 2022). An assessment that may be utilized is the Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAP), which is highly regarded for is psychometric properties in identifying known abusers (Melton et al., 2018). Legal questions regarding child protection are: 1. Did child maltreatment occur? a. Did child abuse or neglect, as defined in criminal and family codes, occur? b. If it did occur, what disposition would alleviate the danger? 2. What happened? What can we (child protection system) do about it? 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. This is also known as the defendant’s MSO, mental state at the time of offense. MSO’s focus solely on the prior functioning of the defendant and not the defendant’s current level of functioning, as in competency evaluations. Multiscale inventories and intelligence measures are the chosen methodology for MSO evaluations due to the accuracy in assessing various clinical constructs. This type of assessment involves examining the thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors before, during, and immediately after the alleged offense. This is to assist in answering the legal question of if a mental disorder resulted in an impairment of the defendant’s understanding of the actions and nature of the crime, if the defendant competently understood the wrongdoing, and to what extent that level of understanding/comprehension was (McLaughlin & Kan, 204). 6

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

Forensic Evaluations and Methodology The fifth amendment plays a huge role in MSO evaluations due to the questions required to be asked by the examiner during the evaluation that may result in the defendant disclosing incriminating information. The Model Penal Code states: “A statement made by a person subjected to a psychiatric examination or treatment shall not be admissible in evidence against him in any criminal proceeding on any issue other than that of his mental condition” (Melton et al., 2018). Recidivism potential for violence evaluations, or more commonly termed ‘violence risk assessments” and are utilized to answer pertinent legal questions regarding the attempted estimation of the probability of future violence, the timeline of potential future violence, to identify risk factors, to identify protective factors, and a recommendation of strategies best utilized for risk management in order to provide crucial information in legal decisions and questions surrounding civil commitment, sentencing, and release (McLaughlin & Kan, 2014). There are several approaches when assessing risk: unstructured clinical assessment, anamnestic assessment, structured professional judgement, actuarial assessment, and adjusted actuarial assessment, with unstructured clinical assessment being the choice of methodology in not just risk assessment, but in psychological and psychiatric evaluations as well. The reasoning behind this chosen methodology is the historical presence of this method that spans over 100 years, and the ability of the examiner to form an opinion with regards to the risk of violence of the defendant by utilizing their own thinking process to combine information (Melton et al., 2018). The Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), originally created as a research instrument, was discovered to reliably predict recidivism of violent behavior, and furthermore was applicable across a multitude of offender populations. The PCL-R (revised version) reviews the history of documented information within institutional records, along with an interview by a clinical mental health professional whose knowledge and administrating of the PCL is at the expert level. Other tests such as the Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R), the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), and the Lifestyle Criminal Screening Form (LCSF) do not necessarily focus on psychopathy, but have provided validity on testing results. Risk assessment involves identifying dynamic risk factors (can change): current age, marital status, recent conduct, employment status, current substance abuse, peer relations, and housing status; and static risk factors (do not 7

Forensic Evaluations and Methodology change): age at first arrest, mental health history, history of substance abuse, and history of gang affiliation (Kroner, et al., 2007). 8

Forensic Evaluations and Methodology References: Archer, R. P., Wheeler, E. M. A., & Vauter, R. A. (2016). Empirically supported forensic assessment. Clinical Psychology (New York, N.Y.), 23 (4), 348- 364. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12171 Association, A. P., & American Psychological Association. (2010). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law proceedings. The American Psychologist, 65 (9), 863- 867. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021250 Fisher, C. (2023). Decoding The Ethics Code: A Practical Guide for Psychologists. Sage Publications, inc. Kroner, D. G., Mills, J. F., Reitzel, L. R., Dow, E., Aufderheide, D. H., & Railey, M. G. (2007). Directions for violence and sexual risk assessment in correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34 (7), 906-918. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807301559 McLaughlin, J. L., & Kan, L. Y. (2014). Test usage in four common types of forensic mental health assessment. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 45 (2), 128- 135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036318 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. Terry, C., & Lecci, L. (2022). Examining cognitive performance and psychopathology in individuals undergoing parental competency evaluations. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 53 (2), 160-170. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000436 9

Your preview ends here

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