lecture 10 - Forensic and legal aspects of assesment

Question 1

key issues in legal / forensic assessment

Answer 1

-assesment tools assist judgements about guilt, competence, sentencing

-importance of reliability and validity
-eg atkins v virginia, 2002
-generalisability to forensic settings?

difficulty of researching this topic:
-eg lab field studies

-pressure on expert witnesses in adversial system

Question 2

competency to stand trial
-3 components
-most common reasons assessed to have lack of competence

Answer 2

3 components
-understanding of criminal process
-ability to consult with defence lawyer
-capacity to understand court proceedings

most common reasons assessed to have lack of competence
* Low IQ
* Very poor memory
* Major mental illness

Question 3

example of someone not fit to stand trial
-9/11 defendant

Answer 3

A military judge at Guantanamo Bay has ruled one of the five defendants charged over the 9/11 attacks is not fit to stand trial in a death-penalty
case.

• The defendant Ramzi bin al-Shibh has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, associated psychotic features and a delusional disorder.
• The medical board of doctors concluded al-Shibh had become delusional and psychotic. That made him incompetent to either face trial or plead guilty.

According to the report, the military psychiatrists said his condition left him “unable to understand the
nature of the proceedings against him or cooperate intelligently”.

Question 4

measuring competency to stand trial
-Pirelli et al. (2011)
-Guarnera & Murrie (2017):

Answer 4

Pirelli et al. (2011)
* Meta-analysis of competency
assessments
* Psychotic disorder strongest
predictor of lack of competence to
stand trial
* Specific competency assessment
tools: Competency Screening Test
stronger predictor of final
competency judgment than WAIS

Guarnera & Murrie (2017):
* Concerns about inter-rater
reliability of competence
assessments.
* Issues such as non-independence
of evaluations
* Best field data from Hawaii:
reliability estimates = .55

Question 5

competence at the time of offense
-reasons for criminal behaviour

Answer 5

-control of behaviour at the time of crime : M’Naughten Rule from England 1843.

-Not guilty by reason of insanity : e.g severe mental illness, drug induced psychosis

-Not guilty due to failure to understand consequences of actions e.g due to cognitive impairment, low IQ

-can be difficult to establish mental state at the time the crime was commited

Question 6

Oscar Pistorius trial

Answer 6

Pistorius sent for tests at Pretoria psychiatric hospital
-Judge Masipa said on Tuesday that four appointed psychiatrists would “inquire into whether the accused by reason of mental illness or mental defect was at the time of the
commission of the offence criminally responsible for the offence as charged.”

Oscar Pistorius trial: Psychiatric report finds athlete ‘is not mentally ill’
Oscar Pistorius had no mental
illness and understood the
wrongfulness of his actions the
night he shot and killed girlfriend
Reeva Steenkamp, his murder trial
heard as proceedings resumed on
Monday. …the independent panel
of experts came to the conclusion
that the athlete does not suffer
from a mental illness and was
“capable of appreciating the
wrongfulness of his act”

Question 7

applications for parole : prediction of reoffending