Discrepancies between Ideal and Actual Mental State at the Time of the Offense Evaluation Practices

ABSTRACT Evaluator judgments of defendants’ mental state at the time of the offense (MSO) can influence the trier of fact and have implications for fairness and justice; however, current practices, and their alignment with best practice guidelines, are effectively unknown. The limited existing literature indicates that there are some substantive differences between practice recommendations for MSO evaluations and how they are conducted in practice. The current mixed methods study expanded those findings by revealing several discrepancies among how evaluators endorsed certain collateral data sources, clinical interview topics, and psychological and forensic assessment tools in an ideal evaluation scenario and how those ratings compared to their actual practices, as well as identified the justifications provided for any discrepancies. Overall, results suggest that actual practices are generally aligned with reported ideal practices; however, some discrepancies exist. We discuss these discrepancies in relation to existing ethical and specialty guidelines and propose practice recommendations. In order to protect against potentially biasing information, evaluators are encouraged to institute safeguards when communicating with a defendant’s attorney, implement a systematic review process, and scrutinize their current clinical interviews. Additionally, clinicians should be aware of all measures relevant to the psycholegal construct and may consider requesting further data sources.