Forensic Psychology For Dummies (159 page)

Deciding to Specialise

As your professional experience develops and particular opportunities emerge, you may well begin to specialise in some particular area of activity: perhaps a special set of patients, such as those with severe mental disorders or alcohol problems; or specific areas, such as giving evidence of malingering or suggestibility.

These specialisms often emerge from research activity, notably at the PhD level (see the previous section), but can also be a consequence of particular prior experiences. For example, I became involved in human rights cases about prison conditions because of my earlier work as a psychologist working in a school of architecture. People get known for their special expertise and therefore get asked to work on cases that involve this activity. In turn, their experience and understanding increase, which strengthens the contribution they can make.

Flying Solo

After a few years within a professional framework, people gain the experience and confidence to work completely independently, which isn’t necessarily an entirely good thing to do. Many of the ethical and professional issues that I discuss in Chapter 17 imply the need to keep in contact with other experts.

Indeed, many professional bodies require ‘Continuing Professional Development’ (CPD) to maintain registration as a professional, in order to ensure that individuals keep up-to-date with developments in their field, particularly their own specialisms. People can also enhance their skills by attending various courses, for example, on some new method of assessment.

Attaining Guru-Like Status

Many doors open after a person becomes established in the energetic, rapidly developing discipline of forensic psychology. Many senior members of the forensic psychology profession move into important administrative posts. They may continue to contribute to popular understanding and the development of the science and profession, or they may do equally important administrative duties in offices. Such people can become deans in universities, advisors to prison administrators or even significant people in government departments, helping to shape policy and inform professional practice at national and international levels.

With my tongue somewhat in my cheek, a few forensic psychologists make such significant contributions to the profession that they become gurus. These people are regarded as having special wisdom and deep experience that they can pass on to others. In the modern world, such people can be bombarded with e-mails asking for assistance or even (amazingly/amusingly) asked to sign photographs of themselves to be made into wedding presents. Forensic psychologists can also be asked for help in apparent miscarriages of justice (or even plain weird approaches that have no obvious rhyme or reason).

Sadly, such fame often owes more to the person being drawn on by the broadcast and printed media for comments, than through any substantial contribution to the development of the science or the profession. That, however, is changing as more people with professional and scientific qualifications become the gatekeepers for the mass media. Any person with some degree of popular recognition for their contributions to the profession has to steer a course between overexposure and the inevitable trivialisation of the discipline, and ensuring that some sensible account of the established science is used in popular accounts, such as writing
Forensic Psychology For Dummies!

Chapter 19

Ten Emerging Areas of Forensic Psychology

In This Chapter

Investigating new areas connected to forensic psychology

Contributing to court proceedings in innovative ways

Helping with some big decisions

Forensic psychology is a growing, evolving profession. Much of the concern with crime, law enforcement and the legal system is to do directly with individuals. So understanding their psychology and experiences is an inevitable part of what legal processes have to deal with. As a result, plenty of nooks and crannies exist in which the discipline can get a foothold and spread its roots and branches from there into other areas.

In this chapter, I describe ten emerging areas of forensic psychology that point to intriguing new directions to which forensic psychology is contributing.

Dealing with Human Rights Cases

With the emergence of Human Rights legislation in Europe and its long-standing presence in the US, a growing number of cases have arisen in which a person claims that they have been treated to unacceptable punishment, as I mention in Chapter 13. These claims often relate to prison conditions, especially in relation to shared cells and the lack of availability of appropriate sanitation. Other cases relate to solitary confinement and its use over longer periods than is ethically acceptable.

When these cases are brought to court, the difficult task arises of sorting out the general effects of imprisonment from the specific conditions that are the basis of the appeal: plus, of course, the individuals bringing these claims are offenders. The initial assumption is likely to be that they aren’t providing the whole truth and may even be distorting the account of their experiences. When these individuals have been assigned the label ‘psychopath’, then the assumption may be made that they’re pathological liars and that their testimony shouldn’t be accepted at all.

Forensic psychology can contribute to the legal process in these cases by drawing on psychology studies about the way prisoners make use of, and experience, their cells and other aspects of the prison they are in.

This contribution is illustrated by the judge’s summing up in an appeal by a Mr Napier that the conditions he experienced were inhumane. I gave evidence in relation to Mr Napier’s appeal. In quoting from my evidence the judge noted the following areas:

Within the cell, the lack of opportunity to create appropriate ‘places’ for activities, most notably the lack of a distinct place of excretion and associated washing facilities.

The sharing of the cell, causing the lack of possibility for creating a ‘personal space’ and distinct area or ‘territory’ for his own activities. . .

The pressure of overcrowding and lack of enough facilities, on the landing and in the block, on the opportunities there might otherwise have been for hygiene, recreation and ‘psychological release’.

The arbitrariness yet excessive control of the regime over the minutiae of daily activities.

The impact of Mr Napier’s eczema on his ability to make use of coping strategies that may have alleviated the brutalising quality of his incarceration.

The uncertainties associated with being on remand.

In my opinion, these conditions interact to create circumstances that in total are more debilitating and dehumanising than could reasonably be expected for imprisonment . . . that view is consistent with the impact that the conditions did, in fact, have upon the petitioner.

Rebutting Pseudo-Science

Psychology is embedded in strong scientific traditions, and so psychologists can bring many basic principles of how to evaluate conclusions from studies of human activity and experience to legal considerations. Curiously the courts, especially in the UK, have no clear way of determining what expertise is allowable – it depends on the particular judges and the circumstances of the case. Therefore, from time to time, individuals are allowed to offer opinions as experts, even though the basis of their expertise is open to challenge. I have experience of such people claiming that some text or transcription of an interview is (or isn’t) the words of a particular person. For example, they assert that a transcript of a confession isn’t the words of the person who’s reputed to have confessed; or that an anonymous, offensive letter was written by an identified individual. These claims of authorship, or lack of it, are invariably based on the details of the particular text in question.

Any scientist will insist that some sort of comparison or control material is required in order to show that the conclusions would not be equally applicable to any text, and so can’t be claimed as definitive for the material under study.

By carrying out studies with control material, I’ve been able to show that the results the ‘experts’ claimed were virtually random. They’d plucked out of a hat the results that suited their case, but could just as readily have found results that led to the opposite conclusion. (If you want some more background on the study of language in the forensic context skip to the section
’
Examining Documents to Help Solve Crimes’ in Chapter 5.)

Providing Evidence in Mitigation

In the evolving complexity of legal processes, people are increasingly charged with rather subtle crimes, such as intending to carry out a terrorist attack or being willing to help in the distribution of illegal drugs. These crimes come close to what George Orwell in his book
1984
called ‘thought crimes’. The defendant may not have carried out a physical act that was criminal, but in fact suggested to others they should do something criminal, or even indicated that they were preparing for criminal activity.

This situation generates court cases in which the utterances of the individual aren’t in doubt and the prosecution can clearly present the person’s apparent intentions. The defence is to offer some evidence of mitigating circumstances that relates to the personality and interpersonal style of the defendant, something that forensic psychology can help with.

In some cases, this defence consists of demonstrating that the person is highly suggestible. Various procedures assess ‘suggestibility’ and are used in courts around the world. Suggestibility is particularly powerful when people confess to a crime because they feel they had to accept what was put before them, even though they weren’t physically guilty of carrying out the crime.

In other cases, the argument may propose that the defendant’s desire to be accepted by others and be ‘one of the lads’ made him particularly vulnerable to social pressures, and so led him to make statements that he didn’t fully understand or endorse. The effects of these arguments hardly ever lead to an acquittal, but can help with a reduction in sentence.

Helping to Combat Workplace Violence and Harassment