Round Two - The Court System
Outside of the "front-end" operations of police work there is numerous opportunities for the application of forensic psychology. In the court system, Forensic Psychologists are frequently used for both criminal and civil cases. In the criminal realm, the forensic psychologist is often asked to assess competency. Competency assessments can serve a number of purposes. First, a defendant can be assessed for the ability to stand trial and/or make legal decisions on their own behalf. These types of decision have been frequent in the news. Most recently in the Ted "Unabomber" Kaczynski case, in which Kaczynski wished to defend himself but was deemed mentally unable to do so. These evaluations are carried out when the defendant appears to suffer from a mental defect, such as an acute psychiatric disorder (i.e., schizophrenia) or a mental disability (i.e., mental retardation). Secondly, Psychologists may also be asked to make an evaluation regarding the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense. The entire "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense relies on the psychological evaluation of a defendant's inability to form criminal intent. Frequently, people forget about the applications of forensic psychology to civil law. Often a forensic psychologist is asked to make evaluations of defendants or plaintiffs disability or level of trauma. From these evaluations the court can decide whether compensatory damages should be provided. Civil-Forensic Psychologists also work on child custody, sexual harassment, and immigration cases. Virtually any civil matter that requires psychological evaluation may include the work of a Forensic Psychologist. It is important to remember that not all Forensic Psychologists work with violent criminals. The Forensic Psychologist that investigates the social-legal components of the common law court system can provide influential knowledge to both criminal and common law cases. Forensic Psychologists often are asked to evaluate potential jury members. To this date numerous 'mock'-jury investigations have been published. From this research, one can determine who is a potentially prejudiced juror. Many believe that a good evaluator can determine, before the case, which jurors are on their side. These Psychologists identify jurors who are potentially prejudicial to their case, and whom can thereby be eliminated from the jury panel during jury selection (or 'voir dire' as it is called in the legal realm). Since both sides can challenge potential jurors this will not usually stack the jury in the favor of either the defense or prosecution. The result is hopefully a fairly balanced jury. These jury experts can also inform the attorney in regards to potential ways to influence the jury. This can include a number of things from the defendant's clothing to the lawyers mannerisms. Many social-legal psychologists are also experts at how to psychologically motivate witnesses. They will inform the lawyer of potential questions that could stump a witness or set him/her off on a tantrum. Such theatrics can be very influential in a trial.
Go To Page: 1 2
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Michael Decaire's Forensic Psychology topic, please visit the Discussions page.