Forensic Psychology LLC - Forensic Psychology LLC

Insanity defense

Insanity Defense Psychologists are often asked to assess whether a criminal defendant was “insane” at the time of an alleged crime. Notwithstanding the controversy surrounding the insanity defense, this is a very difficult task. We can never truly know another person’s subjective experience. Criminal responsibility is typically something that comes up months or even years later when the criminal justice system gets around to adjudicating a case. Thus, the defendant’s mental state must be evaluated retroactively. This involves reviewing historical information such as medical records during the relevant time frame, written observations by law enforcement or mental health workers, witness accounts of the offense, and, if available, video and audio recordings of the defendant during or immediately before or after the offense. It is generally better to rely on statements made at the time of the offense than on a witness or the defendant’s memory of what happened months or years later because memory is fallible. “Insanity” in the legal system is not the same as a psychiatric diagnosis. It has a very specific meaning. In Louisiana it is defined in Title 14 of the Revised Statutes: “If the circumstances indicate that because of a mental disease or mental defect the offender was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong with reference to the conduct in question, the offender shall be exempt from criminal responsibility.” (R.S. 14:14). People, mentally ill or not, usually know if they are behaving in a way that is right or wrong. Sometimes they don’t, such as when they are intoxicated on substances or when they have been deceived or coerced in some manner, but rarely does a mental illness, even a severe one, make a person unaware of the wrongfulness of criminal actions. Note “not knowing” is not the same thing as not remembering. Intoxication and deception/coercion may be relevant to criminal responsibility, however, they are not considered insanity. To be considered insane, the cause of the defendant’s not knowing the wrongfulnes of his/her criminal actions has to be a mental disease or defect. “Mental disease or defect” is typically equated to an official diagnosis, though the most commonly used diagnostic manual in the United States comes with a disclaimer that it is not meant for legal purposes. It is used anyway, with a caveat that personality disorders are probably not mental diseases. Louisiana law defines what qualifies as: “Mental deficiency” means significantly subaverage intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior, as determined by a psychiatrist or psychologist and manifested during the developmental period. “Mental illness” means a psychiatric disorder which has substantial adverse effects on the parent’s ability to function and which requires care and treatment as determined by a psychiatrist or psychologist. It does not include a person who has, solely, one of the following conditions: (a) An intellectual disability. (b) Epilepsy. (c) Alcoholism. (d) Drug abuse. The legal system typically excludes Antisocial Personality Disorder and voluntary substance intoxication or withdrawal. After analyzing all the evidence in a case including police reports, witness statements, video footage and the defendant’s medical records (if he has any, which he should if he was so ill that he was not able to know he was doing wrong), insanity can be ruled out given the above criteria. Back to Posts

Dual Roles and Psychological Practice

Dual Roles and Psychological Practice Psychologists consider a dual role and psychological practice unethical when it compromises their ability to fulfill their professional responsibilities, maintain objectivity, or protect the well-being and rights of their clients or patients. While not all dual roles are inherently unethical, there are specific situations where psychologists generally agree that dual relationships should be avoided due to the potential for harm or ethical violations. Financial or business relationships: Psychologists should be cautious about engaging in financial or business relationships with their clients or involving themselves in activities that could create conflicts of interest. Supervisory relationships: Psychologists who are in positions of authority or supervision should maintain appropriate boundaries and avoid engaging in dual relationships with their supervisees that could compromise their professional judgment or create conflicts of interest Researcher-participant relationships: Researchers should ensure that they maintain appropriate boundaries with participants and avoid dual roles that could compromise the voluntary and informed consent process, objectivity, or the well-being of the participants. Note that there are some exceptional cases where a dual role may be unavoidable or where the potential benefits outweigh the risks, but such situations should be carefully evaluated, and steps should be taken to minimize harm and maintain ethical standards. Psychologists prioritize the well-being, autonomy, and rights of their clients or participants and strive to maintain professional boundaries. Unethical Dual Roles for Forensic Psychologists Forensic psychologists often play a crucial role in legal proceedings, such as providing expert opinions, conducting evaluations, and offering recommendations. They are expected to provide unbiased and objective assessments based on their professional expertise. Dual roles can not only harm the individuals involved, they can compromise the objectivity and impartiality of the psychologist and ultimately make the legal process unfair. A forensic psychologist who also takes on the role of an advocate for a client or examinee or becomes personally invested in a specific outcome is not objective and is potentially engaging in an unethical dual role. Serving as both a court-appointed evaluator and a paid expert witness for the same case can create conflicts of interest and compromise the psychologist’s ability to provide an unbiased evaluation. It can undermine the integrity of the forensic process and erode public trust. Providing therapy or treatment to a client while also acting as an evaluator or expert witness in their legal case can blur professional boundaries and create conflicts of interest. The psychologist may find it challenging to maintain objectivity in their evaluation if they have a therapeutic relationship with the individual. The psychologist may also end up in a position in which inforamation harmful to the individual that was disclosed in therapy is shared with the Court in an evaluation, which could damage the relationship and negatively affect treatment. When a forensic psychologist is involved in the client’s legal defense strategy or decision-making process, this is likely to compromise objectivity, as the psychologist will have an interest in a particular outcome. It is important for forensic psychologists to maintain impartiality and objectivity and uphold the highest ethical and professional standards with each case. Harmful dual roles interfere with these aims and jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the legal process. Back to Posts

Dual Roles and Psychological Practice Read More »