This paper summarizes the events that inspired the Ewert v. Canada webinar and this special edition. Moreover, this paper considers some of the issues that need to be cogitated in forensic, cross-cultural risk assessment. The issues discussed include (a) psychometric issues involved in cross-cultural risk assessment, (b) ethical issues presented in cross-cultural assessment, and (c) the use of psychological measures with groups that a measure was not originally normed on. Additionally, this paper presents a brief discussion of the Ewert case. The article offers numerous questions that may guide clinical considerations/discussion and future research in the area of cross cultural research.

There are numerous ethical issues that correctional psychologists in Canada face on a regular basis. This article analyzes the following ethical issues as they relate to the adult correctional context in Canada: (a) who is the client, (b) confidentiality, (c) protection of psychological records, (d) informed consent, (e) assessment, (f) corroboration, (g) refusal of services, (h) nondiscrimination, (i) competence, (j) knowledge of legal structure, (k) accuracy and honesty, (l) misuses of psychological information, and (m) multiple relationships. This article is organized around three of the four principles of the Canadian Psychological Association's ethics guide.

Assessments of both fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility are common, complex forensic evaluations with substantial societal implications. Currently in Canada, medical practitioners, in particular psychiatrists, conduct the vast majority of assessments of fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility. Although the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) allows these evaluations to be completed "by a medical practitioner or any other person who has been designated by the Attorney General," in practice, qualified clinical-forensic psychologists generally have been excluded from performing these types of assessments. This article reviews the historical and contemporary evidence-based and advocacydriven efforts to change the CCC to allow qualified professionals such as clinical-forensic psychologists to conduct assessments of criminal responsibility and fitness to stand trial. We argue that the training and experience of clinical-forensic psychologists places them in a unique and qualified position to conduct these challenging types of forensic evaluations. We therefore recommend that the Canadian federal government consider changing section 672 of the CCC to allow assessments of fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility to be conducted by a qualified mental health professional. The change would be consistent with other sections of the CCC and would improve access of accused persons and the courts to qualified assessors. Regardless of discipline, we propose that standardized training and monitoring programs be developed and implemented to promote reliable evaluations and best practices. Statement (a) We are advocating for qualified clinical-forensic psychologists to be designated under the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) to perform assessments of fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility. b) Designating qualified clinical-forensic psychologists in Canada to undertake independent assessments of criminal responsibility and fitness to stand trial would serve the public good by improving access to qualified professionals by the courts and accused persons. (c) This article outlines the rationale for change as well as the specific proposed amendments to the wording of the CCC to require that professionals conducting these assessments have specialized qualifications to ensure that courts and accused persons will receive standardized and evidence-based services. Public Significance

This is the first paper to look at the entire population of those found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCR) in Alberta, Canada. The Alberta NCR Project examined longitudinal data from the NCR population to describe sociodemographic, mental health, and criminological profiles. Data were collected for the period of 1941 (i.e., the first known case in Alberta) to October 15, 2015, using archived patient chart information. The majority of Alberta NCRs have not completed high school, are diagnosed with some form of psychosis, and were found by the court to be NCR due to a violent crime. The Alberta NCR population has grown by an average of seven NCR accused per year and, of those who have reached absolute discharge, each person spent an average of 5.7 years under the Alberta Review Board (the provincial body that oversees those found NCR). Those who committed a homicide had significantly longer hospitalizations than those under every other crime category, except attempted homicide.