Forensic Psychology and Its Ethical Practice in Court System

      Kenneth Bianchi and his cousin, Angelo Buono, were convicted of raping and killing ten girls and women during a four-month period in the hills above Los Angeles in 1991 (Bardsley, 1998, PP.17). Bianchi had fled to Washington before he was charged and taken into custody. There, he attempted to plea an insanity defense, claiming he had a multiple-personality disorder and that one of his alter egos had committed the crimes. When a forensic psychologist determined that Bianchi was fabricating his mental illness, Bianchi pled guilty and agreed to testify against his cousin in exchange for avoiding the death penalty in the Los Angeles case. He is now serving a life sentence in Washington – his cousin died in prison (Bardsley, 1998, PP.19). Forensic psychologists have been active participants in the court system for nearly a century, providing both treatment and evaluative services for a number of psycho-legal questions. Despite this long-standing relationship with the court, the issue of appropriate psychological evaluation procedures and their potential impact on the court process needs to relatively get attention (Wells, 1987, PP.490).

      The legal system requires that an individual accused of a crime must be competent to stand trial in order to defend himself/herself. Further, an individual may be competent to stand trial, but may have been suffering from a psychological disorder at the time the crime was committed. This could prevent an individual from forming intent to commit a crime. For all these reasons, a forensic psychologist might indicate psychological evaluations of criminal defendants (Viljoen, 2003, pp. 371). In addition, the forensic psychologist's evaluation and report is an important element in presenting evidence for sentence mitigation. Psychological factors that are part of a defendant's personality, which predict a potential behavior pattern are useful in establishing whether that individual was capable of committing the offenses presented at trial (Viljoen, 2003, pp. 374). In Hamblin v. Mitchell, 335 F.3d 482 (sixth Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of a lower court because counsel did not thoroughly investigate the defendant's mental history in preparation for the sentencing phase of the trial. Specifically, the court stated that such investigation should include members of the defendant's immediate and extended family, medical history, and family and social history (including physical and mental abuse, domestic violence, exposure to traumatic events and criminal violence) (Viljoen, 2003, pp. 378).

      Forensic psychologists also provide evaluation and consulting services for family court matters that overlap with criminal court. Included are child abuse investigations leading to criminal charges, domestic violence evaluations, assessment and counseling of individuals who violate restraining orders, evaluating the credibility of child witnesses, evaluations of juveniles accused of criminal acts, juvenile pre-sentencing evaluations and juvenile probation evaluations (Slobogin, 2003, PP.278).

      In civil court, forensic psychologists are most often engaged as experts to assess emotional factors related to personal injury proceedings. Forensic psychologists assess specific emotional factors that might result from traumatic injury, such as post-traumatic stress, depression, chronic pain or anxiety (Slobogin, 2003, PP.282). If a head injury is present, forensic psychologists may include neuropsychological assessment to evaluate memory dysfunction, or other types of cognitive impairment, which may coincide with the physical injuries. Forensic psychologists may also be asked to evaluate the long term emotional impact of events, such as the impact on a child of losing his/her mother, or the impact of victimization related to a criminal act (Slobogin, 2003, PP.285).

       The ethical behavior of a forensic psychologist is often a subject of speculation. Two forensic psychologists who are both respected professionals of the same field of expertise may one day find themselves contradicting each other in a legal court. During the course of their practice, forensic psychologists must adhere to higher ethical standards of behavior due to the nature of their profession (Bush, 2006, PP.125). These standards are codified in the American Psychological Association's "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct." Forensic psychologists must not succumb to pressure from the legal system to arrive at a desired outcome. Rather, they must always remain objective practitioners of psychology. Forensic psychologists must provide services only within their areas of expertise and must develop and maintain their areas of expertise on an ongoing basis. Forensic psychologists are duty-bound to maintain confidentiality within the limits defined by law. In addition, forensic psychologists must inform defendants of the extent to which their information will not be confidential and obtain confidentiality waivers (Bush, 2006, PP.173).

     Forensic psychologists use their understanding of psychological principles to assist the courts and the legal system in making complex decisions related to crime or disputes and human behavior. Forensic psychologists can specialize in the areas of family, civil, or criminal court, acting as expert witnesses and performing tasks such as mental competency evaluations, assess the defendant's state of mind of at the time of the offense and investigating claims of child abuse. The psychologist's opinion often has weight in sentencing recommendations and parole hearings, as well as in treatment options and prognosis.


References:

Bardsley, M. (n.d.). Angelo Buono and Kenneth Bianchi, the Hillside Stranglers — The

Rampage Begins — Crime Library on truTV.com. truTV.com: Not Reality. Actuality.. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from http://www.trutv.com/library/crime

Bush, S. S., Connell, M. A., & Denney, R. L. (2006). Ethical practice in forensic psychology: a

systematic model for decision making. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Slobogin, C. (2003). Pragmatic forensic psychology: A means of "scientizing" expert

testimony from mental health professionals?. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 9(3), 275-300. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.9.3-4.275

Viljoen, J. L., Roesch, R., Ogloff, J. P., & Zapf, P. A. (2003). The Role of Canadian

Psychologists in Conducting Fitness and Criminal Responsibility Evaluations. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 44(4), 369-381. doi:10.1037/h0086959

Wells, G. L. (1987). Review of "Behavioral scientists in courts and corrections".

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 19(4), 489-491. doi:10.1037/h0084789