Behavioral Sciences & the Law最新文献

The Internet plays a pervasive role in modern life including the expression of human sexuality and sexual offending. A range of online sexual activities may be of interest in forensic mental health evaluations (FMHE), including those which are clearly illegal or those which are legal but functionally problematic. Online sexual offenses will clearly prompt forensic evaluators to consider the role of the Internet in these offending behaviors. The Internet may also be relevant in forensic evaluations of contact sexual offending including informing on history of mixed or cross-over offending, and Internet-facilitated contact offenses. A review of Internet-data may span several online domains, many of which provide the user with substantial anonymity and would likely not be available to the evaluator unless provided through the process of discovery. Early guidelines for the review of Internet-data in FMHEs have been proposed and support the Internet as a useful source of collateral data in the conduct of forensic evaluations of sexual behavior.

Forensic psychiatrists and neuropsychiatrists are likely to encounter individuals with intellectual disability as they are over-represented in the judicial system. These individuals may have the full range of mental illnesses and comorbid conditions, including physical infirmity, sensory deficits, language impairment, and maladaptive behaviors. They are frequently disadvantaged in the judicial system due to lack of comprehension, lack of accommodations, and stigmatization. Decision making capacity may need to be assessed for health care, sexual autonomy, marriage, financial management, making a will, and need for guardianship. The usual approach to conducting an evaluation needs adaptation to fit the unique characteristics and circumstances of the individual with intellectual disability. The forensic consultant can assist attorneys, defendants, and victims in recommending accommodations and the expert witness can provide education to juries.

Behaviors that would otherwise be considered criminal acts, but occur in the context of a sleep disorder, pose challenges to the traditional application of legal principles of criminal responsibility. Determining the degree to which consciousness is present during such behaviors becomes a necessary step in assigning criminal culpability. Historically, legal defense theories of unconsciousness, automatism, and insanity have been raised to negate culpability for parasomnia related behaviors. Accordingly, proper assessment of sleep disorders in the context of criminal charges becomes critical in assisting the functions of the justice system. This article reviews principles related to the legal tradition, expert assessment, and elements of expert testimony related to criminal behaviors and sleep disorders.

Functional neurological disorders (FND) and somatization are common in clinical practice and medicolegal settings. These conditions are frequently disabling and, if arising following an accident, may lead to claims for legal compensation or occupational disability (such as social security disability insurance). However, distinguishing FND and somatization from symptoms that are intentionally produced (i.e., malingered or factitious) may pose a major forensic psychiatric challenge. In this article, we describe how somatoform disorders and FND lie along a spectrum of abnormal illness-related behaviors, including factitious disorder, compensation neurosis, and malingering. We provide a systematic approach to the forensic assessment of FND and conclude by describing common litigation scenarios in which FND may be at issue. Forensic testimony may play an important role in the resolution of such cases.

A central tenet of forensic mental health assessment is the use of multiple sources of data. Traditionally, these sources have included clinical interviews with and observations of the examinee, written records review, psychological test data, and interviews with collateral sources. Data from social media and social networking sites (SNS) is now widely used in civil litigation. However, existing professional practice standards and guidelines do not specifically address the use of SNS data. This leaves forensic mental health evaluators with little guidance as to why, when and how to incorporate SNS data into their evaluations. We review the extant literature on the use of SNS and other social media data in personal injury and disability cases, including legal, ethical, and practical considerations, with the goal of providing forensic mental health practitioners with a framework for making decisions about when and how to incorporate these data into their evaluations and opinions. We advocate caution in conducting independent searches of social media and the Internet, and in making inferences about internal states based on SNS postings. To illustrate these points, we include a case study.

Increasing use of social media in forensic mental health evaluations will lead to new challenges that must be resolved by forensic practitioners and the legal system. One such dilemma is the discovery of information that would typically trigger a legal duty and professional ethics obligation for mental health professionals to breach doctor-patient confidentiality to promote public safety and prevent harm to vulnerable third parties. Although the law and professional organizations offer clear guidance for practitioners in the treatment role, there is currently no clarity from the law or instruction from professional organizations on what mental health professionals should do if they discover such information during a confidential forensic evaluation. For example, a forensic evaluator may find evidence on social media of an evaluee’s threats to seriously harm others, abuse of children and the elderly, or severely impaired driving. There are no clear guidelines for how a forensic psychiatrist should respond in these complicated situations. We review the legal concepts and historical evolution of confidentiality, privilege, and mandated reporter duties that forensic practitioners should consider in these legally ambiguous situations. Finally, we discuss ethics frameworks practitioners can implement to determine their most ethical course of action when faced with such dilemmas.

Forensic evaluators are increasingly called upon to review online collateral information, including social media posts, web forum posts, chat histories, and other sources such as manifestos. This information is especially vital when assessing members of a virtual community such as that of the involuntary celibate, or incel community. While this new wealth of information can add valuable context to the forensic assessment, it presents unique challenges for the evaluator including challenges with authenticity and interpretation. This article will present an approach to evaluations of such collateral, including a review of the relevant empirical research in this area and touch upon important areas to consider in the forensic evaluation of incel online activity.

Violent rhetoric online is becoming increasingly relevant to the practice of forensic mental health assessment as examinee's virtual lives may transform into real-world acts of violence. With the rise of a diverse subculture of violent online communities, the aim of the present study was to inform how concerns with online sources of collateral data and racial/ethnic biases may influence determinations of violence potential. Using an experimental design, jury-eligible participants (N = 278) and forensic mental health experts (N = 78) were presented with mock Twitter (now referred to as X) posts that varied by data source (i.e., how information was accessed) and the examinee's race/ethnicity. Results showed no differences in participants' ratings of data credibility, how much weight they would place on the posts in a threat assessment, or how likely the examinee was to act violently against his intended target. Implications regarding the interpretation of social media evidence, relevant limitations, and future research are discussed.

Eyewitness testimony serves as important evidence in the legal system. Eyewitnesses of a crime can be either the victims themselves—for whom the experience is highly self-referential—or can be bystanders who witness and thus encode the crime in relation to others. There is a gap in past research investigating whether processing information in relation to oneself versus others would later impact people's suggestibility to misleading information. In two experiments (Ns = 68 and 122) with Dutch and Chinese samples, we assessed whether self-reference of a crime event (i.e., victim vs. bystander) affected their susceptibility to false memory creation. Using a misinformation procedure, we photoshopped half of the participants' photographs into a crime slideshow so that they saw themselves as victims of a nonviolent crime, while others watched the slideshow as mock bystander witnesses. In both experiments, participants displayed a self-enhanced suggestibility effect: Participants who viewed themselves as victims created more false memories after receiving misinformation than those who witnessed the same crime as bystanders. These findings suggest that self-reference might constitute a hitherto new risk factor in the formation of false memories when evaluating eyewitness memory reports.

Neurobiological evidence has grown increasingly relevant in U.S. criminal proceedings, particularly during sentencing. Neuroimaging, such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Positron Emission Tomography scans, may be introduced by defense counsel to demonstrate brain abnormalities to argue for more lenient sentencing. This practice is common for penalty mitigation in cases eligible for capital punishment. This article reviews the history of the use of neuroscience in criminal cases from the early 20th Century to present, noting pertinent legal and ethical considerations for the use of such evidence. The authors review important empirical research conducted in recent years regarding the use of neurobiological evidence in legal proceedings (such as mock-juror studies) and guidance from the federal sentencing guidelines and the American Bar Association. The discussion also notes relevant case law in which neuroimaging, behavioral genetics, or other neurobiological data were introduced in criminal proceedings, particularly precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases.