Assessing symptom exaggeration of psychopathology in incarcerated individuals and mentally ill offenders within forensic contexts

Abstract

In forensic contexts, there is a high probability that offenders may exaggerate illness to avoid legal punishment. Since very few empirical studies presently exist on this matter in Thailand, the objectives are to explore the prevalence rate of the exaggeration of psychopathological symptoms and to examine the detection strategy response styles for Thai version of the Symptom validity test (SVT-Th). An analysis of the factors that influence symptom exaggeration would also be included. Mixed participants included 608 individuals consisting of 528 Incarcerated individuals and 80 Mentally Ill Offenders (MIOs). SVT-Th indicated the prevalence rates of feigned psychopathology among overall offenders were 8.88%, 3.20% for incarcerated individuals, and 46.30% for MIOs. As expected, the endorsed average scores of the psychopathological symptoms using the Amplifier and Unlikely response style were recorded at similar amounts.Offenders with a history of mental illness exaggerated their symptoms to a greater degree than those without a history of mental illness. With regard to the type of crime and the number of offenses, no discrepancies of statistical significance were found. Interestingly, offenders who committed violent crimes, and with more than four times the number of offenses, were more likely to exaggerate their symptoms than the other subjects.

Structured instruments for insanity defense evaluations: Opportunities and limitations

“…This evaluation represents one of the most challenging and debated evaluations at the intersection of psychiatry and the law—whose objectivity, reliability and transparency have frequently been questioned. These qualms may be based on several reasons, among which: The retrospective nature of the assessment: the forensic evaluator must infer the defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime (often weeks or months before the assessment) on the basis of the subject's examination and history, psychiatric assessment, and collateral sources of information (e.g., police and health records, witnesses); The risk of faking good or faking bad (malingering) (Arin & Mengchuay, 2022; Knoll & Resnick, 2008). Given the considerable reliance of psychiatric diagnosis on the person's own words (history taking), the outcome of the examination may be influenced by a defendant's (possibly) untruthful answers to the psychiatrist's questions. Whether or not legal experts should give explicit advice about the defendant's sanity/criminal responsibility (Meynen, 2016).…”

“…• The risk of faking good or faking bad (malingering) (Arin & Mengchuay, 2022;Knoll & Resnick, 2008). Given the considerable reliance of psychiatric diagnosis on the person's own words (history taking), the outcome of the examination may be influenced by a defendant's (possibly) untruthful answers to the psychiatrist's questions.…”

How do people with antisocial personality disorder with or without psychopathic personality disorder activate and regulate emotions? Neurovegetative responses during an autobiographical task

“…Studies have shown that the profiles of forensic patients differ in many respects, such as their psychiatric history. Indeed, 72.50% of forensic patients have received treatment for psychiatric illness, whereas 94% of people incarcerated have never received psychiatric treatment (Arin & Mengchuay, 2022).…”