Psychologists are often asked to testify in court. However, concerns have been expressed in both the legal and psychological literatures about the quality of these services. This article presents survey results comparing the practice patterns of generally licensed psychologists with those of specialist forensic diplomates in providing risk evaluations. Results suggest that general clinicians frequently perform these evaluations, but forensic diplomates use more modern risk instruments, are more aware of the scientific literature, and provide the court with more information about the scientific basis of their testimony. The implication of these results for legal professionals, psychologist training, and practice are discussed.
Psychologists frequently testify in court about an individual's risk for future violence. Decades ago, the basis for such testimony was problematic, but the field has made significant progress. However, recent criticisms raise ethical concerns about risk evaluations and state that current methods do not meet admissibility standards. Responding to such criticisms is important for expert witness involvement in these evaluations. We note that it is feasible to conduct thorough ethical evaluations that will aid judicial and clinical decision making. We argue that the courts find this information necessary, and well-informed professionals can make valid and important contributions in these proceedings. To leave the courts without access to the best science available could cause more harm than good.
Given that the duty to protect is now a well established clinical and legal expectation, training in professional psychology should assist students in developing conceptual models for violence risk assessment and management. This report presents a training model incorporating recent advancements in risk assessment (such as the assessment of psychopathy), the need for basic legal understanding, and knowledge of specific risk management strategies. Additionally, academic and internship training programs in Michigan were surveyed by telephone about current training patterns. Preliminary results indicated program strengths in general awareness and training in risk factors. However, the data also suggested a need to formalize a faculty role in risk education, improve the training of students in relevant legal information, and establish coherent conceptual models of dealing with potential patient violence. It is argued that improving training of future professionals in this way will improve clinical practice, reduce legal liability, and improve public safety.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.