Forensic Psychology

A defendant’s ability to assist in their own defense and understand the legal proceedings are critical in preserving the dignity of the judicial system and maintaining balance of the adversarial legal process. The determination of a defendant’s competence to stand trial is made by a judge; however, psychologists can play a critical role in evaluating and offering an opinion about a defendant’s ability to understand the legal process and collaborate with their attorney for the benefit of their own defense. This process is facilitated through a forensic interview, psychological testing, and a thorough review of documentation about the defendant’s history. Through this process, an evaluation can be completed that assesses whether the defendant (a) understands the criminal charges and potential outcomes, (b) understands the trial process and the role of all parties involved in the trial, and (c) can collaborate with the defense attorney and make decisions about the direction of the case. In addition to producing a written evaluation addressing the aforementioned issues, it is common for expert testimony to be offered in the courtroom setting to assist the judge and attorneys with making a determination about the defendant’s competency.

Also called mental status at the time of the offense, criminal responsibility evaluations assist with reconstructing a defendant’s mental status toward making a determination regarding criminal culpability. Forensic evaluations of this kind consider whether a severe mental illness impacts the defendant’s perceptual, cognitive, rational, or other mental capacities such that the individual should be immune from criminal responsibility. In many instances, a defendant found to lack criminal responsibility may be found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. The process of assessing a defendant’s criminal responsibility involves a forensic interview, psychological testing (if applicable), a thorough record review, and contact with collateral sources. While the determination of a defendant’s criminal responsibility is ultimately a legal process, it is common for the psychologist to be asked to offer expert testimony to assist the court’s decision-making process.

Psychological evaluations aimed at predicting the likelihood that a person could commit a future violent, sexual, or criminal act are known as risk assessments. A defendant’s risk for reoffending may outlined by identifying static, or historical, factors, such as victim characteristics, criminal history, and lifestyle aspects. Additionally, risk can be conceptualized by outlining dynamic, or changeable, risk factors, such as mental health status, personality characteristics, and behavioral patterns. These evaluations are considered an opportunity to educate the Court about recidivism rates for various types of offenses, including violent and sexual crime, as determined by empirically-validated risk assessment tools. In addition to providing an opinion regarding a defendant’s likelihood of committing future crimes, these evaluations seek to outline protective factors, or traits that may mitigate the defendant’s risk. Further, these evaluations outline recommendations for maximizing protective factors, such as offender-specific treatment programs and community supervision guidelines aimed at preventing future offending.

Psychological evaluations can play a critical role in the sentencing phase of criminal cases. Sentence mitigation evaluations can be utilized toward negotiating plea agreements or educating the court about various psychological factors that should be considered when implementing a sentence. Defense attorneys may retain psychologists to prepare an evaluation outlining the cognitive, emotional, behavioral, social, developmental, and other factors that influenced the defendant’s criminal conduct. More specifically, sentencing mitigation evaluations may outline the effects that adverse childhood experiences, trauma, abuse, and other detrimental life events had on the defendant’s criminal conduct. Such evaluations may identify factors that should be considered as minimizing culpability, and ultimately could influence the court to reduce the severity of the defendant’s sentence. Evaluations of this nature often include risk assessments aimed at assessing the likelihood that the defendant could commit different acts of violence. An especially critical element of these evaluations include the recommendations aimed at preventing recidivism through mental health treatment, community supervision, residential programs, or other rehabilitative opportunities.