Forensic psychology is primarily application of psychology to the contexts of the judicial system with the aim of recognizing, profiling, understanding, and rehabilitating criminals and victims depending on the situation. This article was my task for admission essay writing service.
The first article for this paper is “Undue Influence or Ensuring Rights?: Attorney Presence during Forensic Psychology Evaluations” by Cramer and Brodsky. In this article, the authors review significance of forensic psychology in legal proceedings and the criminal justice system generally. The second article is entitled “Ethical Decision-making and Forensic Practice” by Barnao, Robertson, and Ward. In this article, the authors equate the quality of forensic psychology in the criminal justice system to the quality of psychology applied in the legal system. The third article entitled “Victims and Forensic Psychiatry: Marginal or Mainstream” by Mezey castigates the manner in which the authorities respond to victims of crime and calls for a review of the system to allow for forensic psychological interventions. The fourth article “Collaboration: The Paradigm of Practice Approach between the Forensic Psychiatrist and the Forensic Psychologist” by Gbadebo-Goyea et al. describes benefits that can be accrued in the justice system if a seamless merger is created between a forensic psychiatrist and a forensic psychologist. The last article entitled “Psychiatric Evaluations in Capital Cases” documents how forensic psychology has been applied before in capital cases and how it can be improved. According to this article, for a long time the criminal justice system has been using experts in various fields to help in the provision of justice with medical and social sciences not being spared from involvement. The aim of this paper is to review and summarize in detail views presented by different authors in the articles mentioned above.
“Undue Influence or Ensuring Rights?: Attorney Presence during Forensic Psychology Evaluations” by Cramer and Brodsky is an article that discusses relevance of forensic psychology within legal proceedings in the criminal justice system. In the article, Cramer and Brodsky state that a forensic psychologist often assesses risk for violence and this helps the court to make accurate and justifiable decisions when it comes to sentencing an offender, granting them parole or other corrective privileges, and even during the rehabilitation process as they are re-integrated back into communities after serving their sentences. As such, the first main contribution that the forensic psychology field has is in relation to the criminal justice system involves enhancing fairness of the system with respect to how offenders are treated. If an individual has a higher risk for future indulgence in criminal activity as evaluated by the forensic psychologist, the judge would be inclined to offer stricter corrective measures as compared to one with lower chances of recidivism. In this context, the forensic psychological evaluation will prevent the court from being ineffective in its corrective and rehabilitative capacity. Stricter measures for offenders with higher recidivism are meant to give the offenders a better chance at reform instead of giving them an ordinary sentence only to have them arrested again soon after they are released. When court decisions are customized to suit findings of the offender’s psychological evaluation, the community is rightfully rid of violent elements without necessary infringing on the rights of defendants. It can be mostly stated that the court is given the right insight to ensure that the justice system actually benefits both the defendant and the community since the defendant is given a relevant and thus potentially better chance to change for the better.
Another argument skillfully presented by Cramer and Brodsky in this article is that, when carried out correctly, a forensic psychological evaluation would be the best tool for ensuring that the criminal justice system gets to work as per expectations of the global concept of justice. With forensic psychological evaluations, it becomes easier for the court to sentence individual offenders based specifically on their psychological evaluations. This sentencing involves recommending corrective measures that are likely to work instead of assuming that prisoners would all like to learn a skill that could or could not give them an employment opportunity once they are out of jail. These evaluations ensure that the court fully understands underlying issues that could send offenders back to prison once they are done with their initial sentence and thus work towards preventing the repeated offence.
In the article, “Ethical Decision-making and Forensic Practice”, Barnao argue that a forensic psychologist is responsible for the quality of psychology that is practiced within legal contexts. This means that any psychology-related expertise in the legal system falls under the forensic psychology field. In addition, Barnao state that most psychologists in the world are likely to be required, voluntarily or otherwise, to provide their expertise within a legal context at one point or another. In most cases, the psychologist takes on the capacity of an expert witness in order to interpret certain technicalities of a criminal case. Under the ethical guidelines of the psychological forensic expert witness, the author cites APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct as a credible source of information for forensic psychologists who are supposed to play the role of an expert witness. According to the article, the guidelines mainly require the witness to be fully qualified within their capacity as psychologists to offer a credible opinion on the subject at hand. Competence in this case should be based on the individual’s training, experience, and cumulative knowledge that they could substantiate if necessary rather relying on a ‘gut feeling’ or any other unscientific concepts that have a high error probability.
Furthermore, Barnao elucidate on various ethical issues in the field of forensic psychology. Hence, regardless of the context, a psychologist is not allowed to show bias even if the court of law is often an adversarial context. In case a psychologist is deliberately being unethical within these lines, a forensic psychologist has the mandate to report the colleague to the relevant authorities, including the specified court of law and the professional board of psychology in their respective jurisdiction. This means that in the event of a hearing when the psychologist is an expert witness and another psychologist provides the court with misleading information, it is mandatory to report rather than sit back and watch the criminal justice system being manipulated to suit interests of an unethical colleague. This means that forensic psychology generally does not condone unethical practices. Another ethical issue discussed in the article is related to the use of short forms in psychological tests that are meant for use in judicial settings. According to the article, short forms may be accurate in ordinary contexts although they have not been verified in terms of their validity, but they cannot be used in the judicial system. Generally, the authors state that forensic psychologists must be able to substantiate their assertions using scientific methods and explanations that resonate with the accepted standards of practice within the profession.
Furthermore, the article, “Victims and Forensic Psychiatry: Marginal or Mainstream” by Mezey presents abilities of a forensic psychologist in relation to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In the beginning of the article, Mezey reiterates that PTSD is a growing cause for concern within the United States and beyond with most cases being attributed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. PTSD is mainly a disorder that is a result of being exposed to high pressure contexts that leave the individual significantly traumatized and thus unable to get back fully to their contexts before the stress. To treat PTSD, Mezey suggests that clinical forensic psychologists can focus on preventing and identifying such cases, especially since they are mostly manifested in the criminal justice system after the victim indulges in criminal activities like physical assault, homicide, and vandalism among others.
Additionally, according to Mezey, forensic psychologists have knowledge and experience to identify an individual who is likely to suffer from PTSD. This means that they have the capability to recommend mandatory trauma preparedness training for individuals who are likely to be affected by PTSD based on their scores on risk factors associated with the condition. This would be a proactive measure that can help to protect the army personnel, as well as first responders, women, and children who are likely to be exposed to stressful contexts that could lead to PTSD in the future. The trauma preparedness training in this case will be critical for the prevention of PTSD as it enables individuals who are at risk to understand their contexts and thus fully cope with the situation as expected when they eventually face stressful situations. Depending on the efficacy of the techniques applied in the preparedness training, prevalence of PTSD should be reduced significantly if all those at risk undertake the training.
Another potential approach for forensic psychologists in dealing with PTSD concerns early interventions. Mezey establishes that people who have been victimized are usually in a life-threatening position in terms of their likelihood to suffer from PTSD with the forensic psychologist being able to recommend the court that all victims undergo a periodical pre-PTSD screening. These screenings are meant to provide a basis for an early intervention, thus preventing crimes that could be committed while suffering from PTSD.
“Collaboration: The Paradigm of Practice Approach between the Forensic Psychiatrist and the Forensic Psychologist” by Gbadebo-Goyea is an article that explores potential outcomes of collaboration between a forensic psychiatrist and a forensic psychologist with a focus on what each of these professionals brings to the table. Gbadebo-Goyea explore roles of the professionals in question, finding that a forensic psychologist is an interface between psychology and law. A forensic psychologist in this article is seen as a professional who helps the legal system to interpret the society through psychology. This means that a forensic psychologist simply offers the criminal justice system a scientific lens through which human behavior can be understood. In turn, forensic psychiatrists are an interface between medicine and law since their practice is mostly focused on medication and brain scans among other things. While psychologists are mainly more behavioral, psychiatrists are simply medical in their practice.
In the article, collaborations between forensic psychologists and forensic psychiatrists are said to have likely positive impacts on the legal system. It is however important to understand similarities and differences between the two professions to face challenges that may also come with the collaboration. Gbadebo-Goyea state that psychiatrists are specifically trained to diagnose, treat, and study mental disorders. This means that a psychiatrist is likely to focus on pharmacological solutions to most conditions. In turn, psychologists are not trained to work with medication. They are most likely to focus on therapeutic methods that do not involve medication. When working with a psychologist, a psychiatrist is likely to underestimate their work and emphasize pharmacological causes or solutions to the problem, thus presenting a conflicting opinion. It is important under such circumstances to consider that each of these professionals has a different perspective with which they approach the problem at hand. Working together would mean giving each side a chance to explain their findings in a way that can be understood and appreciated by the other party as well. Generally, this means that collaboration is possible, but only within contexts where the professionals recognize and appreciate the competence of the others.
The article entitled “Psychiatric Evaluations in Capital Cases” by Kapoor, Michaelsen, and Prabhu focuses on how forensic psychology can be used effectively in capital cases for better justice outcomes in the judicial system. According to Kapoor, forensic psychology helps the criminal justice system in capital cases by providing mitigating factors that are critical when passing judgment. Some of these mitigating factors include whether or not offenders recognize graveness of the offence and thus whether or not they are apologetic about it. This factor presents the general mindset of offenders in relation to whether they are naturally inclined to commit the offence or whether they were pushed by circumstances and are thus remorseful. In such a situation, while the court is inclined to punish offenders, there may be a chance to help them with the correctional and rehabilitative process. For example, offenders may be further evaluated and thus counseled or guided to cope with whatever circumstances that pushed them to commit the offence. If the defendant was, for example, a victim of rape and thus ended up seeking revenge and taking the life of the rapist, they can be helped to deal with PTSD from their rape while in custody despite being charged guilty for murder.
In view of Kapoor forensic psychologists are also able to determine if the offender was under control of another person when committing the crime. Such information is critical when the judicial system would like to punish the right person for the offense. If a defendant was acting on behalf of another person when committing a crime, it is only right that they are charged for aiding, while whoever controlled them is charged for the crime itself. Forensic evaluation in this case would ensure that only real criminals are punished for their crimes rather than having them out on the streets while others pay for their offenses. According to this article, conducting a forensic psychological evaluation of a defendant is likely to disclose aspects of the case that would not be considered as obvious without these professionals. Mitigating factors that are disclosed help to make the judicial system more effective since the truth becomes clearer for the judge or the jury.
Forensic psychologists could be any professionals in the field of psychology who are called upon to work with the legal system in one capacity or another, whereby they could be expert witnesses or a part of the investigative or even defense team in any other capacity depending on the case. According to the articles mentioned above, the criminal justice system benefits significantly from engaging forensic psychologists provided these psychologists act ethically, uphold truthfulness and accuracy in their practice, and are able to work with other professionals as needed. These may include forensic psychiatrists among others. Generally, it is noted that a forensic psychologist can help the court of law to be more objective and thus just in dealing with criminals.