Chauhan, P., Warren, J., Kois, L., & Well-beloved-Stone, J. (2015). Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 21, 1, 56-59. This study examined the impact of conjoint CST and MSO evaluations on forensic examiner opinions. Readers are undoubtedly aware that contextual information may have a significant influence on examiner decision-making especially under conditions of uncertainty. The authors […]
Author Archives: Marvin W. Acklin, Ph.D.
Significance of Combining Evaluations of Competency to Stand Trial and Sanity at the Time of the Offense
A high percentage of crime is committed when both defendants and victims are alcohol intoxicated. Forensic clinicians are regularly asked to evaluate mental states at the time of the offense for accused perpetrators and victims of alleged crime during periods of alcohol intoxication. In criminal proceedings, both defendants and victims commonly claim that alcohol intoxication […]
A crisis is brewing in scientific psychology and forensic science. This concerns the overall reliability of all psychological science (more on this later) and the quality of expert evidence and testimony in courts of law, regardless of the expert’s discipline (yes, even including the supposedly hard stuff, like DNA analysis). The consensus: alarmingly poor. This […]
Ipse Dixit in Latin means, “he himself said it”; It is frequently encountered in expert testimony. Ipse dixit is an unsupported statement that rests solely on the authority of the speaker. I think a better translation is “because I said it…[it is true].” It is a conclusory opinion without support. Gutheil & Bursztjan (2003) articulate […]
The cumulative weight of 30 years of research originating in Tversky and Kaheman’s seminal 1974 description of the mental shortcuts humans use when confronting cognitive ambiguity complexity, and Kahneman’s recent masterpiece Thinking Fast, and Slow (2011, cf. Gilovich, Griffin, & Kahneman, 2002) has created a mature cognitive science of forensic decision-making. The findings are not […]
There has been a growing awareness, some would say crisis, concerning the mediocre quality of expert forensic testimony submitted to the courts in the United States. This appears to be a function of weak methods, and a low threshold for judicial gatekeeping, despite clear mandates in Rule 702 and Daubert and progeny on the foundations […]
Daniel Murrie and his colleagues have produced a series of recent studies on “partisan allegiance” in forensic expert witness work (see citations below). They define partisan allegiance as the tendency for experts to bias their testimony in favor of the side that calls them. They demonstrate this through ingenious experiments with PCL-R ratings. The response […]
A nice article by William Foote PhD in APA’s Good Practice (Winter 2014) is worth a look for students who think they might be interested in forensic psychology. Contrasting clinical and forensic psychology, he writes, “But the field is not for everyone…Forensic psychology is also much more confrontational. You’re often in an adversarial position, with […]
Karen Franklin’s blog is the premier site for ground-breaking issues in forensic psychology. Always worthwhile and readable, witty and biting, sometimes breathtaking and bold. Her March 9, 2014, post addresses the recent scandal at Napa State Hospital in California, which serves the Northern California incompetent defendant and NGRI population, similar to our Hawaii State Hospital. […]
Assessing Homicidal Mental States at the Time of Offense IV: The 2011 Norway Massacre: Criminal responsibility analysis using the R-CRAS.
The use of forensic assessment instruments is a distinguishing factor in the quality of forensic reports (Fuger, Acklin, Nguyen, Ignacio, & Gowensmith, 2013). In insanity determinations, the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS, PAR, Inc.) are without peer as an aide to organizing and analyzing case data. It is a systematic coding measure which permits […]