Moral Challenges for Psychologists Working in Psychology and Law

Critical review of the use of the Rorschach in European courts

In relation to the admissibility of evidence obtained using projective personality tests arose in F v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatam (2018). The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that an expert's report can only be accepted if it is based on the international scientific community's standards, but has refrained from stipulating what these standards are. It appears timely for European psychologists to decide what standards should be applied to determine whether or not a test is appropriate for psycholegal use. We propose standards and then apply them to the Rorschach because it was used in this case and is an exemplar of projective tests. We conclude that the Rorschach does not meet the proposed standards and that psychologists should abstain from using it in legal proceedings even in the absence of a clear judicial prohibition.

Forensic assessment may be based on common sense assumptions rather than science

Forensic assessments must be scientifically founded, because courts should obtain expert evidence with acceptable evidential value. In Slovenia, professional guidelines of forensic personality assessment are too general and not always in line with international professional recommendations. Thus, experts have no strict guidelines which would lead them to scientifically grounded expert opinions. The aim of the research was to establish which tests are employed in forensic assessment in Slovenia and to what extent the professional guidelines for expert opinions are followed. A total of 166 forensic personality assessments were reviewed, representing the majority of expert opinions issued in the period 2003-2018. The results of the analysis revealed that questionable projective tests are most commonly used. Typically, an expert opinion was rendered based on two tests, at least one of which was projective. What is more, expert opinions did not include hypotheses, in-text citations, reference lists, or proof of the expert witness's competence. The tests and their results were mentioned briefly and inadequately, without mention of their reliability and validity. Possible malingering of the person being evaluated was not detected. Professional guidelines were not followed and non-standardized tests without normative values and of questionable scientific merit were predominantly used, despite lack of proof that they truly measure what they claim to be measuring. These findings significantly differ from the results of similar research, raising serious concerns over the credibility of expert opinions in Slovenia.

Structuring the debate about research ethics in the psychology and law field: an international perspective

Forensic psychologists' role is well established, and they are rightly well regulated because their decisions and behaviour can have a significant impact on people's rights and interests. Their ethical integrity, however, partly hinges on the psycholegal research products (data, methods and instruments) that they and others use. The ethical regulation of researchers who produce products and their research processes is, however, fragmented, limited and narrow and largely focuses on domestic research. Relatively few scholars have examined the regulation of psycholegal research or commented on the ethical implications of recent court decisions. The purpose of this paper is to start a debate about the ethical regulation of researchers in the psycholegal field and consider methods of improving it to maintain society's trust in the field.

Assessing the Risk of Australian Indigenous Sexual Offenders Reoffending: A Review of the Research Literature and Court Decisions

The assessment of offenders' risk of reoffending, particularly sexual reoffending, is a core activity of forensic mental health practitioners. The purpose of these assessments is to reduce the risk of harm to the public, but they are controversial and become more contentious when Australian practitioners who want to undertake such assessments in an ethically responsible way must use reliable validated instruments, disclose the limitations of their assessment methods, instruments and data to judicial decision-makers and understand how decision-makers might use their reports. The purpose of this systematic literature review was to explore the practices of Australian practitioners and courts in respect of the assessment of Australian Indigenous male sexual offenders' risk of reoffending. We could not identify an instrument that has been developed for the assessment of this population group. Australian courts differ in whether they admit and give weight to practitioners' evidence and opinions based on data obtained with non-validated instruments. We could only identify three possible predictor variables with enough quantitative support to justify including them in an instrument that could be used to assess Indigenous sexual offenders. There is a need for research regarding the validity of the instruments that practitioners use.