Criminal Responsibility Evaluations: Role of Psychologists in Assessment

Ferguson, Murray Murray; Ogloff, James R. P.

doi:10.1080/13218719.2010.482952

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three landmark cases and one legislative reform advanced the due process protections for Canadian NCR individuals while upholding public safety needs (Ferguson & Ogloff, 2011). Chaulk v. The Queen (1990) ruled that the definition of wrongfulness must consider the moral intentions behind an offense, whereas R v. Swain (1991) ruled that indeterminate detentions violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982).…”

Section: Legislative Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static and dynamic predictors of forensic mental health decision-making.

Cheng¹,

Olver²,

Haag³

et al. 2023

Psychological Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Canada, individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) fall under the supervision of a jurisdictional review board (RB) per the Criminal Code. Limited research has examined whether RB decisions balance the needs of public safety with social reintegration as intended by federal legislation. To fill this gap, the present study determined whether forensic decisional outcomes in one provincial RB system accounted for information relevant to violence risk. Study instruments included the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 Version 3, and the Revised Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. A retrospective longitudinal design was employed to examine an NCR cohort (N = 109) that entered the RB system between 2005 and 2010 and their respective RB hearings (N = 327) until 2015. Results indicated that risk-relevant information was supplied to the RB by forensic professionals; however, key criminogenic risk and need factors as defined by the LS/CMI were absent in clinical reports. RB decisions were still strongly predicted by empirically supported risk factors linked to violent recidivism. Higher release likelihoods corresponded to a proportionally greater reliance on dynamic risk factors to enact dispositions. Forensic risk instruments are central aspects of correctional rehabilitation, and the results demonstrated their relevance to forensic tribunals. It is recommended that information from a forensic risk instrument be routinely delivered to RBs to support evidence-based decision-making. Impact StatementReview boards are required by the Canadian Criminal Code to balance public safety needs with the social rehabilitation of supervised forensic patients. Despite being supplied with an incomplete profile of risk and need information by forensic professionals, decision-making outcomes were still predicted by risk factors linked to violent reoffending. Forensic risk instruments provide information relevant to violence risk and can assist with evidence-based decision-making in forensic psychiatric settings.

show abstract

Section: Legislative Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static and dynamic predictors of forensic mental health decision-making.

Cheng¹,

Olver²,

Haag³

et al. 2023

Psychological Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Understandably, the ALI decision model performed much better for reliability with an average kappa of 0.81. Given the challenges of establishing retrospective reliabilities, Ferguson and Ogloff (2011, p. 87) described the R‐CRAS as a “highly reliable measure.” Construct validity utilized discriminant models that clearly differentiated those clinically evaluated as likely sane and likely insane. The overall classification rates were 97.2% for the calibration sample and 92.5% for cross‐validation sample.…”

Section: Fais For the Assessment Of Criminal Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic assessment instruments: Their reliability and applicability to criminal forensic issues

Rogers

Tazi

Drogin

2023

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forensic evaluations have advanced considerably with the development of specialized measures validated on forensic and correctional samples. Prior to this progress, such evaluations relied heavily on extrapolations from general psychological tests to crucial, legally relevant questions. Since then, decades of empirical work have produced forensic assessment instruments (FAIs) addressing psycholegal standards in addition to forensically relevant instruments (FRIs) examining issues central to forensic practice (e.g., malingering) but not the standards themselves. This article provides a critical examination of the development, validation, and modern applications of six published FAIs that each address one of three broad criminal forensic issues (i.e., insanity, competency to stand trial, and Miranda abilities and waivers). Evaluations of the measures' reliability and validity particularly in forensic samples are highlighted. To complement FAIs, FRIs related to response styles are briefly explored. As a primary goal, forensic practitioners are provided with the knowledge and background about FAIs to enhance their criminal forensic practices.

show abstract

“…Aside from the United States, psychologists are involved in these forensic assessments in a number of other countries, such as The Netherlands (Grossi & Green, 2017; van der Wolf, van Marle, Mevis, & Roesch, 2010). Australian statutes vary from state to state but most states designate both psychologists and psychiatrists to conduct these forensic assessments, and psychologists routinely evaluate fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility (Ferguson & Ogloff, 2011). In the United Kingdom, a United Kingdom Law Commission (2016) report on unfitness to plead makes the case for allowing psychologists’ reports to be accepted by the courts.…”

Section: Practice In Other Jurisdictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility assessments: Advocating for changes to the Canadian criminal code.

Roesch

Kayfitz²,

Watt

et al. 2019

Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Criminal Responsibility Evaluations: Role of Psychologists in Assessment

Cited by 12 publications

References 42 publications

Static and dynamic predictors of forensic mental health decision-making.

Static and dynamic predictors of forensic mental health decision-making.

Forensic assessment instruments: Their reliability and applicability to criminal forensic issues

Fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility assessments: Advocating for changes to the Canadian criminal code.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About