Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:20:17.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Clinical Decision-Making Regarding Criminal Responsibility

from Part II - Pretrial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

By
Lauren E. Kois ,
Lauren Meaux ,
Jennifer Cox  and
Sharon Kelley
Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

Clinicians can play an integral role in the ultimate determination of defendants’ criminal responsibility, given that information gleaned from mental state at the time of the offense (MSO) evaluations influence judges and jurors’ decision-making about a particular case. Such evaluations are particularly complicated due to their retrospective nature, lack of a standardized assessment approach, and variability in criminal responsibility statutes across jurisdictions and time. Yet several legal, clinical, and contextual factors appear to impact clinicians’ decision-making when tasked with these evaluations. In this chapter, we examine the existing literature regarding MSO evaluation referrals, including combined evaluations, to help inform practitioners’ expectations. Next, we review critical components of an MSO evaluation and identify challenges for clinical decision-making. Then we discuss forensic report writing and testifying, as informed by the literature regarding best practices. Lastly, we suggest how field reliability of mental state evaluations might improve through research and policy.

Keywords

criminal responsibilityinsanitymental state at the time of the offenseMSO evaluationsMSO testimonyMSO report writing
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 274 - 289
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Law Institute. (1985). Model penal code and annotations. American Law Institute.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. The American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889.Google Scholar
Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., & Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_07.Google Scholar
Borum, R. (2003). Criminal responsibility. In Grisso, T., Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed.) (pp. 1973–228). Kluwer.Google Scholar
Burton, N. M., & Steadman, H. J. (1978). Legal professionals’ perceptions of the insanity defense. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 6(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318537800600204.Google Scholar
Bush, S. S., Connell, M., & Denney, R. L. (2020). Ethical practice in forensic psychology: A guide for mental health professionals. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Canales, E. J., Kan, L. Y., & Varela, J. G. (2017). Forensic assessment with Hispanic and limited English-proficient Hispanic evaluees: A survey of practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(2), 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000112.Google Scholar
Coffey, C. A., Batastini, A. B., & Vitacco, M. J. (2018). Clues from the digital world: A survey of clinicians’ reliance on social media as collateral data in forensic evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 49(5–6), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000206Google Scholar
Cox, J., DeMatteo, D. S., & Doran, S. C. (2021). Choosing a competent forensic mental health professional: A guide for legal practitioners. The Champion, 18–26.Google Scholar
Durham v. U.S., 214 F.2d 862 (1954).Google Scholar
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 704(b).Google Scholar
Felthous, A. R. (2021). Rationality was lost on the United States Supreme Court in its Kahler Decision. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 50(1), 97–105.Google Scholar
FindLaw. (2019, January 23). The insanity defense among the states. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html.Google Scholar
Frierson, R. L., Boyd, M. S., & Harper, A. (2015). Mental illness and mental health defenses: Perceptions of the criminal bar. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 43(4), 483–491.Google Scholar
Gardner, B. O., Murrie, D. C., & Torres, A. N. (2018). Insanity findings and evaluation practices: A state-wide review of court-ordered reports. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36, 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2344.Google Scholar
Gowensmith, W. N., & McCallum, K. E. (2019). Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the least biased of them all? Dangers and potential solutions regarding bias in forensic psychological evaluations. South African Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246319835117.Google Scholar
Grisso, T. (2010). Guidance for improving forensic reports: A review of common errors. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2, 102–115. https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/psych_pp/282/.Google Scholar
Grove, W. M., Barden, R. C., Garb, H. N., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2002). Failure of Rorschach-Comprehensive-System-based testimony to be admissible under the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho standard. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(2), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.8.2.216.Google Scholar
Guarnera, L. A., & Murrie, D. C. (2017). Field reliability of competency and sanity opinions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 795–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000388.Google Scholar
Hammurabi, K. (2008). Code of Hammurabi (L. W. King, Trans). (Original work published c. 1700 BCE). https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp.Google Scholar
Heilbrun, K. (2006). Principles of forensic mental health assessment (Vol. 12). Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. Public Law 98-473, Sec. 401, 402 §20 (1984).Google Scholar
Insanity Defense Work Group, American Psychiatric Assn, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, DC. (1983). American Psychiatric Association statement on the insanity defense. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 140(6), 681–688. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.140.6.681.Google Scholar
Kahler v. Kansas, 140 S. Ct. 1021 (2020).Google Scholar
Knoll, J. L. IV, & Resnick, P. J. (2008). Insanity defense evaluations: Toward a model for evidence-based practice. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 8(1), 92–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/brief-treatment/mhm024.Google Scholar
Kois, L. E., & Chauhan, P. (2018). Criminal responsibility: Meta‐analysis and study space. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(3), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2343.Google Scholar
Kois, L. E., Meaux, L. T., Cox, J., & Kelley, S. (2021). Evaluators’ experiences with combined competence to proceed and mental state evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(3), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000306.Google Scholar
Kois, L. E., Reed, J., Warren, J. I., & Chauhan, P. (2019). Defense referral patterns associated with competency to stand trial, mental state at the time of the offense, and combined evaluations. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 19(4), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2019.1612215.Google Scholar
Kois, L. E., Wellbeloved-Stone, J. M., Chauhan, P., & Warren, J. I. (2017). Combined evaluations of competency to stand trial and mental state at the time of the offense: An overlooked methodological consideration? Law and Human Behavior, 41(3), 217–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000236.Google Scholar
Lally, S. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.34.5.491.Google Scholar
McCallum, K. E., & Gowensmith, W. N. (2020). Tipping the scales of justice: The role of forensic evaluations in the criminalization of mental illness. CNS Spectrums, 25(2), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852919001275.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, J. L. & Kan, L. Y. (2014). Test usage in four common types of forensic mental health assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45, 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036318.Google Scholar
Meaux, L. T., Cox, J., & Titcomb Parrott, C. (2021). Discrepancies between ideal and actual mental state at the time of the offense evaluation practices. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 21(5), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2021.1945829.Google Scholar
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., et al. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (4th ed.). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Neal, T., & Brodsky, S. L. (2016). Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000077.Google Scholar
Neal, T., Slobogin, C., Saks, M. J., Faigman, D. L., & Geisinger, K. F. (2019). Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619888860.Google Scholar
NH Rev Stat § 628:2 (2014).Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716-1–aac4716-8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.Google Scholar
Otto, R. K., DeMier, R., & Boccaccini, M. (2014). Forensic reports and testimony: A guide to effective communication for psychologists and psychiatrists. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.1.5.Google Scholar
Packer, I. K. (2009). Best practices in forensic mental health assessment: Evaluation of criminal responsibility. Oxford University Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Parsons v. State, 2, So. 854 (1886).Google Scholar
Pasewark, R. A., & Craig, P. L. (1980). Insanity plea: Defense attorneys’ views. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 8(4), 413–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318538000800405.Google Scholar
People v. White, 79 N.Y.2d 900 (1979).Google Scholar
Perlin, M. L. (1994). The jurisprudence of the insanity defense. Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Queen v. M’Naghten, 10 Clark & F.200, 2 Eng. Rep. 718 (H. K. 1843).Google Scholar
Rex v. Arnold, 16 How. St. Tr. 95 (1724).Google Scholar
Ritzler, B., Erard, R., & Pettigrew, G. (2002). Protecting the integrity of Rorschach expert witnesses: A reply to Grove and Barden (1999) re: The admissibility of testimony under Daubert/Kumho analyses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.8.2.201.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, J. H., LeWinn, L. M., & Perlin, M. L. (1983). The insanity defense under siege: Legislative assaults and legal rejoinders. Rutgers Law Journal, 14, 397–430.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. (1984). Rogers criminal responsibility assessment scales (R-CRAS) and test manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. & Shuman, D. W. (2000). Conducting insanity evaluations (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
State v. Hartfield, 300 S.C. 469 (1990).Google Scholar
Tullett, A. M. (2022). The limitations of social science as an arbiter of blame: An argument for abandoning retribution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(4) 995–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211033284.Google Scholar
US v. Hinckley, 672 F.2d 115 (1982).Google Scholar
US v. Lyons, 731 F. 2d 243 (1984).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×