The impact of defendant ethnicity on the psycholegal opinions of forensic mental health evaluators

South African Journal of Psychology

McCallum

2019

When psychological evaluators are asked to provide their expert opinions in legal proceedings, they are expected to do so in an objective and unbiased way. The statutory requirements regarding the admissibility of expert testimony in many countries often cite objectivity and reliability as standards. However, as is true in many realms of human decision-making, the field of forensic psychological assessment is fraught with bias. In this article, we discuss several lines of research that have investigated bias in forensic psychological evaluations. We also discuss emerging lines of research involving methods to measure and reduce bias. We conclude with a call for structured self-monitoring as an important strategy for forensic evaluators to mitigate bias in their work.

Section: Threats To Objectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the least biased of them all? Dangers and potential solutions regarding bias in forensic psychological evaluations

South African Journal of Psychology

McCallum

2019

“…23,24,50 Additionally, research has found discrepancies in evaluator opinions related to the racial and/or ethnic background of the defendant. 16,18,22 Clearly, these threats to the reliability of forensic opinions must be addressed if evaluations are to reach the highest standards of objectivity and neutrality. The reliability of evaluator opinions is surprisingly low across nearly all psycholegal referral questions, 51 most likely for many of the reasons articulated previously.…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Defendants of color, for example, should not be routinely found IST more often than Caucasian defendants; unfortunately, some scholars have shown this to be true in some samples. 16,18 If race or skin color is truly a differential factor for some CST evaluators, then the notion of objective and reliable opinions is clearly tainted. The final forensic opinion (and subsequent judicial adjudication) should not depend on race, skin color, fees, the individual evaluator, or any other idiosyncratic factors.…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, a great deal of research demonstrates that many evaluators are biased by multiple internal and external factors. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Biased, unreliable, or low quality forensic mental health evaluations deteriorate the fairness of the justice system overall. Given the important systemic and individual impacts of forensic evaluations, it is critical that they are efficient, valid, reliable, and held to high standards of quality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tipping the scales of justice: the role of forensic evaluations in the criminalization of mental illness

McCallum

2019

CNS Spectr.

Self Cite

An unprecedented number of individuals with mental illness are represented in the criminal justice system. The unending growth of mentally ill populations in the justice system has led to jails and court dockets being increasingly overwhelmed with cases involving mental illness, state hospitals devoting far more beds and resources to forensic cases, and people without a criminal commitment left waiting for mental health services as forensic cases are prioritized. Although a forensic mental health evaluation is only one component of this larger system, common problems with forensic mental health evaluations can exacerbate the criminalization of persons with mental illness in many ways. This article reviews the current literature regarding issues of quality, reliability, and validity of forensic mental health evaluations, discusses the broader impact of these issues, and offers potential solutions for the field.

“…Primarily, forensic evaluators must possess a command of complicated psycho-legal issues, case law, and courtroom procedures. Forensic evaluations are also often complicated, requiring evaluators to consider difficult psychological and legal nuances not always present in routine clinical assessments (Kois, Pearson, Chauhan, Goni, & Saraydarian, 2013; McCallum, MacLean, & Gowensmith, 2015; Mossman et al, 2007; Parker, 2016; Pinals, Tillbrook, & Mumley, 2006). Focused training in these areas is paramount.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards the development of a forensic psychology training curriculum in South Africa

Pillay

South African Journal of Psychology

Banks

2019

With the growing need for forensic mental health services and the call for increasing rigour in clinical practice, the development of specialised training programmes appears to be increasing globally. In South Africa, the licencing authority has also been focusing on this issue, and its task group has been investigating specialty training models in regard to future developments in licensure, training, qualifications, and related registration matters. The present investigation was undertaken as a way of informing this process, especially in the area of curriculum content and development. The authors undertook a survey of existing accredited forensic psychology training programmes in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The aim was to examine the qualification level, period of study, admission criteria, online study option, field placement, and the module content. The results are presented for the 62 programmes surveyed and discussed with reference to the South African context and local needs.