Forensic Psychology, a subfield of psychology, involves the application of psychological

knowledge and methods to both civil and criminal legal questions. Traditionally, it has a broad
definition as well as a narrow definition.[1] The broader classification states that forensic psychology
involves the application of all psychological areas of research to the legal field, while the narrower
definition characterizes forensic psychology as “The application of clinical specialties to legal
institutions and people who come into contact with the law.”[2] While the American Psychological
Association (APA) officially recognized forensic psychology as a specialty under the narrower
definition in 2001, the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists previously acknowledged by
the APA in 1991 were revised in 2013 to include all subfields of psychology
(e.g. social, clinical, experimental, counseling, neuropsychology) that apply "the scientific, technical,
or specialized knowledge of psychology to the law."[3][4]
In addition to forensic psychology, legal psychology is practiced within the umbrella term of
psychology and law as recognized by Division 41 of the APA, American Psychology-Law Society.
[5]
 Legal psychology, as a whole, focuses on many of the aspects that forensic psychology centers
around—these being how psychology can be applied to the legal field. As such, these subfields can
often be used interchangeably with the exception that legal psychology does not typically include
clinical matters within its scope. These issues, in particular those directly relating to mental health,
are best explained through forensic psychology.
Because forensic psychology is so heavily intertwined with the legal field, it requires an
understanding of fundamental legal principles, such as those regarding standard legal practices and
standards used by legal professionals, expert witness testimony, competence and insanity
definitions and evaluations, and so on in order to be able to communicate effectively
with judges, attorneys, and other legal professionals.

Contents

 1History
o 1.1Forensic Psychology in Popular Culture
 2Training and Education
 3Roles of a Forensic Psychologist
o 3.1Practice/Direct Service
 3.1.1Evaluations and Assessments
 3.1.2Treatment
 3.1.3Consultations
o 3.2Research
o 3.3Education and Advocacy
 4Forensic psychological evaluations
o 4.1Common types of evaluations
 4.1.1Forensic assessment of competence
 4.1.2Forensic Assessment of Insanity
 4.1.3Risk Assessment
 4.1.4Other Types of Evaluations
o 4.2Distinction Between Forensic and Therapeutic Evaluation
 5Ethics in Forensic Psychology
 6Notable Research in Forensic Psychology
 7See also
 8Footnotes
 9Further reading
 10External links

History[edit]
Psychology itself was established in the U.S. in the 1880s by American students returning home
from study in German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt’s experimental psychology lab. Many of these
returning students had interests in the law (e.g. testimonies, individual’s functional capacity) in
addition to the schools of the field taught by Wundt. Nonetheless, the concept of psychology officially
being used in legal settings wasn’t introduced until several years later in the first decade of the 20th
century by Hugo Münsterberg , the first director of Harvard’s psychological laboratory and founder of
applied psychology.[6] Though he attempted to imbue his expertise in the legal field, his approach
was reported as being condescending and abrasive and caused anger and scrutinization from the
legal community toward his research.[7] This community rejected Münsterberg’s ideas in response,
with some labeling it as Yellow Psychology, impractical, and exaggerated although this interpretation
of history has been challenged.[8] Following this backlash, psychology was widely left untouched by
legal professionals until post-WWII when clinical psychology became more accepted as a legitimate
allied health profession and became more successful in contributing to legal proceedings. Whereas
cases such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) led to the appreciation of psychology’s
ability to influence legal decisions, it was cases like Jenkins v. U.S. (1962) that truly legitimized it. In
this latter case, the D.C. circuit upheld, for the first time, that clinical psychologists were to be
considered expert witnesses when discussing mental illness.[6][9][10]
The American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS) was created in 1969 and was later converted into
Division 41 of the APA in 1980.[11] As the field continued to grow, more organizations dedicated to the
study and application of psychology to the law began to develop. In 1976 the American Board of
Forensic Psychology (ABFP) was chartered and eventually became a part of the American Board of
Professional Psychology (ABPP) in 1985. This merging marked the development of the first
certification for psychologists wanting to work within the field of forensic psychology.[11] Later
organizations and conferences aided in solidifying the development of forensic psychology, such as
the American Academy of Forensic Psychology and the National Invitational Conference on
Education and Training in Forensic Psychology (1995). Forensic psychology was then officially
recognized as a professional specialty under the APA in 2001.[3]

Forensic Psychology in Popular Culture[edit]

Forensic psychology has seen a large spike in popularity in the media and among younger
generations within recent years. In fact, many undergraduate students are drawn to this subject
under the misconception that forensic psychology is primarily used for criminal profiling. TV shows
and movies such as Criminal Minds, Mindhunter, and Silence of The Lambs have widely popularized
the practice of criminal profiling, particularly within the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
(FBI) Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU).[12] Despite the excitement given to the idea of a career in
criminal profiling, students who show an interest in this particular aspect of forensic psychology
come to find that the practice of criminal profiling is rarely used outside of the BAU.[13]

Training and Education[edit]

In a broad sense, forensic psychology is a subset of applied psychology. Forensic psychologists
may hold a Ph.D. or Psy.D. in clinical psychology, counseling psychology, social
psychology, organizational psychology, school psychology, or experimental psychology. There are
no specific license requirements in the United States to be a forensic psychologist. If one is a
clinical-forensic psychologist, one would need a license to practice clinical or "health services"
psychology, but an additional license to practice clinical-forensic psychology is not required.
Psychologists who do not provide healthcare services do not need to be licensed at all in some
states. Forensic psychologists ideally have some years of postdoctoral experience, training, and
supervision or mentoring in forensic psychology.
In other countries, training and practitioner requirements may vary. In the United Kingdom, for
example, a person must obtain the Graduate Basis for Registration with the British Psychological
Society—normally through an undergraduate degree. This would be followed by Stages 1
(academic) and 2 (supervised practice) of the Diploma in Forensic Psychology (which would
normally take 3 years full-time and 4 years part-time). Assessment occurs via examination, research,
supervised practice, and the submission of a portfolio showing expertise across a range of
criminological and legal applications of psychology. Once qualified as a "Chartered" psychologist
(with a specialism in forensic psychology), a practitioner must engage in Continued Professional
Development and demonstrate how much, of what kind, each year, in order to renew his/her
practicing certificate.

Roles of a Forensic Psychologist[edit]

Practice/Direct Service[edit]
Evaluations and Assessments[edit]
Evaluations and assessments are completed by forensic psychologists to assess a person's
psychological state for legal purposes. Reasons for completing these evaluations can involve
acquiring information for criminal court (such as insanity or incompetence), for criminal sentencing or
parole hearings (often regarding a potential intellectual disability that prevents sentencing or one's
risk of recidivism), for family court (including child custody or parental termination cases), or civil
court (involving personal injury or competence to decide).[14] It is important to note that while a
forensic psychologist is responsible for assessing and reporting results of an evaluation, the
responsibility ends here. Any decisions made based on these reports from forensic psychologists
are up to other legal professionals. This also means that any assessment made by an evaluator is
not considered a counseling session, and therefore whatever is said or done is not confidential. It is
the obligation of the evaluator to inform the individual being evaluated that everything in the session
will be open to scrutiny in a forensic report or expert testimony. Forensic psychologists conducting
evaluations may also function as expert witnesses as many are called into court to testify about the
results of their evaluations. They have a variety of employment settings, such as forensic and state
psychiatric hospitals, mental health centers, and private practice. Evaluators usually have had
training as clinical psychologists.[15]
Treatment[edit]
Providing forensic psychological treatment involves implementing measures and treatment of
psychological problems to reduce or prevent crime. Treatment providers may be asked to
administer psychological interventions to those who require or request services in both criminal and
civil cases. In regard to criminal cases, forensic psychologists can work with individuals who have
already been sentenced to reduce recidivism, which refers to one's likelihood of repeating his or her
offense. Other interventions that may be implemented in these settings are drug and alcohol abuse
treatment, sex offender treatment, treatment for a mental illness, or anger management courses.
[14]
 As for civil proceedings, treatment providers may have to treat families going through divorce
and/or custody cases. They may also provide treatment to individuals who have suffered
psychological injuries as a result of some kind of trauma.[15] Treatment providers and evaluators work
in the same types of settings: forensic and state psychiatric hospitals, mental health centers, and
private practices.
Consultations[edit]
Providing consultations allows forensic psychologists to apply psychological expertise and research
to help law enforcement, attorneys, and other legal professionals or proceedings better understand
human behavior (e.g. criminal, witness, victim, jury), civil processes, effects of trauma or other life
events, and so on. If working as a consultant, a forensic psychologist is able to be involved in legal
proceedings through responsibilities such as reviewing court records (such as a defendant's
psychosocial history or assess mitigating or aggravating factors in a case), serving as a jury
consultant (organizing focus groups, shadow juries, mock juries, or helping with the voir dire
proceedings), and assessment without testimony (in which results of a defendant's evaluation are
not disclosed to the prosecution team, allowing the defense team to develop a defense strategy),
among others. Essentially, consultations can take a number of forms, including the common ones
below:
Law Enforcement Consultations may take the form of assisting with criminal profiling, developing
hiring procedures and methods, determining the psychological fitness of returning officers, or simply
lending expertise on certain criminal behaviors.[16][17] As mentioned above, criminal profiling is a very
appealing aspect of psychology to prospective forensic psychologists despite the fact that it isn't very
widely used within the field.[16] There are several methods and approaches related criminal profiling,
but there is still a lot of skepticism about the efficiency and accuracy of criminal profiling in general.
[17]
 A couple common approaches are the scientific approach, which includes the FBI's Crime Scene
Analysis and Canter's investigative Psychology, and the intuitive approach, which includes Tukey's
Behavioral Evidence Analysis.[14][18][19][20]
Trial Consultants are psychologists who work with legal professionals, such as attorneys, to aid in
case preparation. This includes jury selection, development of case strategy, and witness
preparation.[21] Forensic psychologists working as trial consultants rely heavily on research in order to
best advise the individuals they are working with. Because trial consultants are often hired by one
specific side in a trial, these psychologists are faced with many ethical issues. It is the responsibility
of the psychologist to remain neutral when consulting-- in other words, the consultant must not
choose a side to support and consequentially omit or create information that would be beneficial to
one side or another. Prior to accepting a case to work on, it is important that the forensic
psychologist weigh the responsibilities of consulting on that case with the ethical guidelines put in
place for the field of forensic psychology.[22]
Expert Testimony about matters relating to psychology is also an area in which forensic
psychologists play an active role.[14] Unlike fact witnesses, who are limited to testifying about what
they know or have observed, expert witnesses have the ability to express further knowledge of a
situation or topic because, as their name suggests, they are presumed to be "experts" in a certain
topic and possess specialized knowledge about it.[23] Expert witnesses in forensic psychology are
called upon to testify on matters of mental health (clinical expertise) or other areas of expertise such
as social, experimental, cognitive, or developmental. The role of being an expert witness is not
primary and it is usually performed in conjunction with another role such as that of researcher,
academic, evaluator, or clinical psychologist. In the past, expert witnesses primarily served the court
rather than the litigants. However, nowadays that very rarely happens and most of the recruitment
for expert witness is completed by trial attorneys. But regardless of who calls in the expert, it is the
judge who determines whether or not the expert witness will be accepted.[17]

Research[edit]
Forensic psychologist researchers make scientific discoveries relevant to psychology and the law.
[14]
 These professionals usually have an advanced degree in Psychology (most likely a PhD). While
their main focus is research, it is not unusual for them to take on any of the other positions of
forensic psychologists. These professionals may be employed at various settings, which include
colleges and universities, research institutes, government or private agencies, and mental health
agencies.[24] Forensic psychology research pertains to psychology and the law, whether it be criminal
or civil. Researchers test hypotheses empirically and apply the research to issues related to
psychology and the law. They may also conduct research on mental health law and policy
evaluation.[24] Some famous psychologists in the field include Saul Kassin, very widely known for
studying false confessions, and Elizabeth Loftus, known for her research on eyewitness memory.
She has provided expert witness testimony for many cases.

Education and Advocacy[edit]

Academic forensic psychologists engage in teaching, researching, training, and supervision of
students, among other education-related activities. These professionals also have an advanced
degree in Psychology (most likely a PhD) and are most often employed at colleges and universities.
In addition to holding professorships, forensic psychologists may engage in education through
presenting research, hosting talks relating to a particular subject, or engaging with and educating the
community about a relevant forensic psychological topic.[14] Advocacy is another form of education, in
which forensic psychologists use psychological research to influence laws and policies. These may
be related to certain movements, such as Black Lives Matter or the Me Too movement, or may even
be related to certain civil rights that are being overlooked.[25]

Forensic psychological evaluations[edit]

Common types of evaluations[edit]
Forensic assessment of competence[edit]
Competence, in a legal setting, refers to the defendant's ability to appreciate and understand the
charges against them and what is happening in the legal proceedings, as well as their ability to help
the attorney understand and defend his or her case.[26] While competence is assessed by a
psychologist, its concern regarding a defendant is typically voiced by the attorney.[27] Though t is the
psychologist's responsibility to assess for competence, it is ultimately up to the judge to decide
whether the defendant is competent or not. If the defendant is found incompetent to stand trial, the
psychologist must then give a recommendation on whether or not the defendant can be restored to
competence through treatment or if the charges should be dropped completely due to incompetence.
A couple potential causes of incompetence includes certain types of brain damage or the occurrence
of a psychotic episode preventing the individual from registering the reality around them. [28][29]
Several cases were instrumental in developing a standard for competence, as well as for
determining the rights of an individual deemed incompetent to stand trial. Youtsey v. United States
(1899) was the case that set the standard for competence, with the judge ruling that trying or
sentencing an individual deemed incompetent violates their human rights. Despite this ruling, no
official guidelines for determining and sentencing matters of competence were developed.
[30]
 In Dusky v. United States (1960), the case upheld the Youtsey v. United States ruling and set
specific criteria for competence. These include having a rational and factual understanding of court
proceedings and being able to consult with an attorney in a rational manner.[31] The case of Weiter v.
Settle (1961) resulted in the decision that a psychologist's opinion in a competency hearing is
considered "opinion testimony." Additionally, guidelines were put in place to accurately evaluate
competency. The eight guidelines established include requirements that the defendant appreciates
one's own presence in relation to time, place, and things; understands that she is in a Court of
Justice, charged with a criminal offense; recognizes that there is a Judge who presides over the
Court; understands that there is a Prosecutor who will try to convict him of criminal charges;
understands that she has a lawyer who will defend her against that charge; knows that he is
expected to tell his attorney what he was doing at the time of the alleged offense; understands that a
jury will determine whether she is guilty or innocent of the charges; and has sufficient memory to
discuss issues related to the alleged offense and the court proceedings.[32] As time has progressed,
more cases have added to these guidelines and expectations when evaluating competency.
Forensic Assessment of Insanity[edit]
Insanity, as opposed to competence, refers to an individual's mental state at the time of the crime
rather than at the time of the trial.[7][17] According to legal principles of insanity, it is only acceptable to
judge, find someone criminally responsible, and/or punish a defendant if that individual was sane at
the time of the crime. In order to be considered sane, the defendant must have exhibited both mens
rea and actus reus. Mens rea, translated to "guilty mind" indicates that the individual exhibited free
will and some intent to do harm at the time of the crime. Actus reus refers to the voluntary
committing of an unlawful act. The insanity defense acknowledges that, while an unlawful act did
occur, the individual displayed a lack of mens rea.[31] The burden of proof in determining if a
defendant is insane lies with the defense team. A notable case relating to this type of assessment is
that of Ford v. Wainwright, in which it was decided that forensic psychologists must be appointed to
assess the competency of an inmate to be executed in death penalty cases.[33][34]
There are various definitions of insanity acknowledged within the legal system.[30] The
M'Naghten/McNaugton rule (1843) defines insanity as the individual not understanding the nature
and quality of his or her acts or that these acts were wrong due to a mental disease or defect. This is
also referred to as the cognitive capacity test. Meanwhile, the Durham Test (established in Durham
v. United States, 1954) states that one can be declared insane if the actions were caused by a
mental disorder. The vague nature of this description causes this definition to only be used in one
state (NH). The final definition acknowledged within the courts is the Brawner Rule (U.S. v. Brawner,
1972), also referred to as the American Law Institute Standard. This definition posits that, due to a
mental disease or defect, an individual is considered insane if unable to appreciate the wrongfulness
of an act and are unable to conform their behavior to the dictates of the law.[31]
Evaluating insanity involves using crime scene analysis to determine the mental state at the time of
the crime, establishing a diagnosis, interviewing the defendant and any other relevant witnesses,
and verifying impressions of the defendant.[35] Challenges associated with this type of assessment
involve defendant malingering, determining the defendant's past mental state, the chance that
different experts may come to different conclusions depending on the assessment method used, and
the fact that it is very common for society to label any psychological disorder as insane (though few
actually fall into this category; insanity primarily involves psychotic disorders).[35][36]
Risk Assessment[edit]
Risk assessment evaluates how dangerous an individual is/could be and the risk of their re-offending
after being released, also referred to as recidivism. Typically, recidivism refers to violent or sex
offending behavior. Risk assessments affect the possibility of an inmate receiving parole and/or
being released from prison and involve two general methods. The clinical prediction method involves
using clinical judgement and experience to predict risk, while the actuarial prediction method utilizes
a research-based formula to predict risk. Two specific methods of risk assessment involve the
Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORGA), both
created by Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier in 1998.[37]
Other Types of Evaluations[edit]
While insanity and competency assessments are among the most common criminal assessments
administered within the legal system, there are several other types implemented. Some of these
include death penalty case assessments, assessments of child sexual abuse, assessments for child
custody or divorce cases, and civil court assessments.[28][38]

Distinction Between Forensic and Therapeutic Evaluation[edit]

A forensic psychologist's interactions with and ethical responsibilities to the client differ widely from
those of a psychologist dealing with a client in a clinical setting.[39]

 Scope. Rather than the broad set of issues a psychologist addresses in a clinical setting, a
forensic psychologist addresses a narrowly defined set of events or interactions of a nonclinical
nature.[11]
 Importance of client's perspective. A clinician places primary importance on
understanding the client's unique point of view, while the forensic psychologist is interested in
accuracy, and the client's viewpoint is secondary.
 Voluntariness. Usually, in a clinical setting, a psychologist is dealing with a voluntary client.
A forensic psychologist evaluates clients by order of a judge or at the behest of an attorney.
 Autonomy. Voluntary clients have more latitude and autonomy regarding the assessment's
objectives. Any assessment usually takes their concerns into account. The objectives of a
forensic examination are confined by the applicable statutes or common law elements that
pertain to the legal issue in question.
 Threats to validity. While the client and therapist are working toward a common goal,
although unconscious distortion may occur, in the forensic context there is a substantially
greater likelihood of intentional and conscious distortion.
 Relationship and dynamics. Therapeutic interactions work toward developing a trusting,
empathic therapeutic alliance, a forensic psychologist may not ethically nurture the client or act
in a "helping" role, as the forensic evaluator has divided loyalties and there are substantial limits
on confidentiality he can guarantee the client. A forensic evaluator must always be aware of
manipulation in the adversary context of a legal setting. These concerns mandate an emotional
distance that is unlike a therapeutic interaction.[22]
 Pace and setting. Unlike therapeutic interactions which may be guided by many factors, the
forensic setting with its court schedules, limited resources, and other external factors, place
great time constraints on the evaluation without opportunities for reevaluation. The forensic
examiner focuses on the importance of accuracy and the finality of legal dispositions.

Ethics in Forensic Psychology[edit]

The ethical recommendations and expectations outlined for forensic psychology specifically are
listed in the APA's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology.[40] These guidelines involve
reminders that forensic psychologists should value integrity, impartiality, and fairness, as well as
avoid conflicts of interest when possible. These conflicts of interest may arise in situations in which
the psychologist is working as a consultant to one side or another in a court case, when the
psychologist is required to testify or evaluate something that collides with their own beliefs or values,
or when a psychologist is faced with the decision of choosing between playing the role of an
individual's evaluator or treatment provider in a case.[41] This final conflict of interest also relates to
the ethical guidelines relating to having multiple relationships with clients.[40] Also as a standard of
ethics, forensic psychologists are expected to offer a certain amount of reduced fee or pro bono
services for individuals who may not be able to afford hiring a psychologist for a court case
otherwise. Other ethical guidelines involve receiving informed consent from clients before
communicating information regarding their treatment or evaluations, respecting and acknowledging
privacy/confidentially/privilege among clients, remaining impartial and objective when involved in a
trial, and weighing the moral and ethical costs of complying with any court orders that may conflict
with professional standards.[42][43][44]