Court Forensic Psychology Forensic Psychology

Court Forensic Psychology

Forensic Psychology in Court

The study referenced for this discussion question was relating to how reliable court-appointed forensic psychology evaluations pertaining to the legal sanity (or lack thereof) of a defendant really are. Modern examples would include the Nidal Hassan who allegedly shot up Fort Hood and the admitted Cleveland kidnapper Ariel Castro (Lindgren, 2013)(Rubin, 2013). The study was written by Daniel C. Murrie from the University of Virgina, Marcus T. Boccaccini from Sam Houston State University and W. Neil Gowensmith from the University of Denver (Gowensmith, Murrie & Boccaccini, 2013).

The study notes that a public perception is that the insanity defense is immensely overused as a result of a select few sensationalized cases. The study counters that the actual insanity defense strategy is rarely used. When it is used, it is very rarely "successful" as a means to avoid or reduce legal culpability for acts that the defendant is admitting they committed. The study notes that the best predictors of whether someone was or is actually lucid as it relates to offering a defense in court include psychological diagnosis of the defendant, whether the person was using drugs at the time of the offense, whether they were under the direct influence of drugs at the time of the offense, whether the person has a history of psychiatric hospitalization or other issues separate and before the alleged offense, and the severity of the alleged offense in question (Gowensmith, Murrie & Boccaccini, 2013).

A forensic psychologist could use this information above and further information from that same study in a number of ways. First, a forensic psychologist could learn that it is best to look at not just the current lucidity of the defendant and/or the person's state of mind at the time of the offense but also at other times when it is much less likely that the person is putting on an act for their criminal defense and/or at times where the alleged criminal act was otherwise not in play. Whether there is a history of drug use, psychiatric issues and so forth would speak a lot about whether there is really an ongoing sanity or if the defense is perhaps a charade to escape legal liability or otherwise get a lesser punishment than would normally be rendered for the offense (Gowensmith, Murrie & Boccaccini, 2013).

The findings of all of these evaluations could then be used to paint a picture that sheds light on whether the insanity plea in question is potentially or verifiably legitimate or if it seems to be a ploy to get around the charges in play. Some notable findings of the study reviewed for this discussion response include the fact that there was some disparate responses among the study subjects but it did not seem to be based on the fact that some of the people involved were psychologists while others were psychiatrists (Gowensmith, Murrie & Boccaccini, 2013).