Artificial intelligence and psychological systems week 1

¶ … Forensic Assessment

In "The role of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide and Historical, Clinical, Risk- 20 in U.S. courts: A case law survey," Vitacco et al. discuss the use of the psychological forensic assessment in predicting future dangerousness. The authors are very critical of the use of psychological assessments for these purposes because of their belief, which is affirmed by investigation into case law, that psychologists often get their predictions wrong. In other words, psychologists are not necessarily able to predict future dangerousness, which can make an assessment of future dangerousness little more than guesswork.

One of the cases mentioned by Vitacco et al. was the seminal case of Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). The defendant, Thomas Barefoot, was convicted of murdering a police officer. He was charged with a capital offense and the jury had to determine whether or not Barefoot was eligible for the death penalty. In order to sentence a defendant to death, the jury had to find that the defendant presented a risk of future dangerousness. The prosecution had two psychiatrists testify about their opinion of whether Barefoot presented a danger to society. In this instance, neither of the psychiatrists had actually examined Barefoot. Instead, their expert opinions revolved around hypothetical questions that involved Barefoot. Despite the fact that they had never examined Barefoot, one of the psychiatrists called Barefoot a sociopath. Based on that diagnosis, the psychiatrist gave the opinion that Barefoot could not be treated and was likely to continue to commit violent acts. The other psychiatrist, who had also not examined Barefoot, described him as a severe sociopath. Based, in part, on this testimony, the jury imposed the death penalty. Barefoot appealed his sentence, based on the speculative nature of the assessment. The Supreme Court held that admission of such testimony did not violate Barefoot's rights. Even though the testimony could be inaccurate, the Court reasoned that the adversarial system was sufficient to permit Barefoot to provide his own evidence that the experts' testimony could be in error.

There are several different implications of the use of forensic assessments. First, there is a societal implication of using forensic assessments in this context. What are the factors that are being used to evaluate future dangerousness? If the jury members have no understanding of these factors, then they are unable to use the adversarial process to determine the accuracy of those predictions. This uncertainty allows the jurors to inject their own personal stereotypes and misconceptions into their decision-making process.

Next, there is an implication of using mental health professionals in a context where their honest assessments may result in harm to the person being assessed. In Barefoot, the psychiatrists had not even personally examined Barefoot, but made their assessments of him based on hypothetical questions. Many mental health professionals find this type of forensic assessment to be disconcerting and to violate professional norms. For example, Dr. James Grigson, one of the psychiatrists who testified in Barefoot, was eventually expelled from two professional psychiatric associations because of the fact that he testified that he could predict future dangerousness with 100% certainty, which was contravened what was known about human behavior. Are mental health professionals, who are supposed to be guided by a principle of not harming others, acting within their moral and ethical boundaries if their forensic testimony would lead to the death penalty?