Behaviour that underpins non-pathological criminal incapacity and automatism: Toward clarity for psychiatric testimony

Factors related to bias in forensic psychiatric assessments in criminal matters: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Identify factors related to bias in forensic psychiatric assessments in criminal matters.

METHOD

Based on the PRISMA guidelines, we searched the following keywords with Boolean operators: (criminal responsibility OR legal responsibility OR neurolaw OR insanity defense) AND (forensic psychiatry OR assessment OR evaluation OR bias OR decision-making OR capacity OR psychometric). The search included publications from January 1998 to December 2019 in the English language, published in PubMed, Web of Science, Taylor & Francis, and Scopus databases.

RESULTS

The final sample consisted of 30 articles separated into three groups: (1) legal elements and the wording of expert reports, (2) psychometric tools applied to criminal inquiries, and (3) expert forensic technique and inter-examiner agreement.

DISCUSSION

Multiple factors for biases were identified: difficulties in equivalence between legal and psychiatric terminologies, elements of countertransference between the expert and the examinee, absence of standardization of expert evaluations, low quality of expert reports, differences in the training of professionals involved in the evaluations, use of psychometric tools, number of professionals working on the same case, and the methodology adopted. Psychometric tools developed specifically for forensic psychiatric evaluations allowed the introduction of objective parameters in expert evaluations. Special attention was found in psychometric tools structured as vignettes that allowed the detailed evaluation of legal capacities, present in the legal texts. Psychometric tools in checklist format appeared to be more susceptible to interviewer biases.

CONCLUSION

The control of inherent biases in forensic psychiatry assessments on criminal matters remains a current challenge, difficult to control in forensic practice. The identification, control and avoidance of them may improve the quality the forensic psychiatric expertise in criminal matters.

The defence of sane automatism and non-pathological criminal incapacity in South Africa: an epistemological intersection between psychology and law

Psychologists and psychiatrists are frequently requested to offer expert opinion regarding the defences of non-pathological criminal incapacity and sane automatism – which are increasingly raised in criminal courts in South Africa. This article briefly explores the development of these defences in South African criminal law and highlights some of the conceptual and epistemological difficulties at the intersection between the law and psychology. The changing legal understandings of the concepts of sane automatism and non-pathological criminal incapacity require careful consideration by mental health experts, and, while these experts can undoubtedly assist the courts, they should be cautious of using reductionist methods to conflate psychological concepts with legal concepts.