forensic psychology 344h
DESCRIPTION
Forensic Psychology 344H. Dr. Peter Collins Dr. Alberto Choy. Instructors. Dr. Alberto Choy - BMedSci., M.D., F.R.C.P(C) Lecturer, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto Forensic Psychiatrist, Behavioural Sciences Section, O.P.P. Instructors. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Forensic Psychology 344H
Dr. Peter CollinsDr. Alberto Choy
Instructors
Dr. Alberto Choy - BMedSci., M.D., F.R.C.P(C)
Lecturer, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto
Forensic Psychiatrist, Behavioural Sciences Section, O.P.P.
Instructors
Peter Collins, B.A., M.C.A., M.D., F.R.C.P(C)
Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto
Manager, Forensic Psychiatry Unit, Behavioural Sciences Section, O.P.P.
Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, Behavioural Sciences Branch, R.C.M.P.
Office Hours
Office hours: before and after lecture or by appointment. By appointment - downtown campus.
Exams Mid-Term Exam - October 20, 2003 - 30%
Final Exam - December 2003 - 40%
Paper - Due November 24, 2003 - 30% - no extensions.
Readings
Text: Wrightsman, Lawrence Forensic PsychologyWadsworth Thompson Learning 2001
Readings: to be provided.
Forensic application of science and clinical expertise
to legal issues.
both law and science seek truth but law’s overriding goal is to administer justice based on the evidence available at a particular time.
Forensic Science aims to be objective but has
limitations and constraints.
lawyers and judges need to have some understanding of science and scientific methodology in order to analyse critically and to discern good science from bad science.
Forensic Psychiatry psychiatry is a medical speciality.
forensic psychiatry is a subspecialty of psychiatry.
involved in the assessment and treatment of individuals who come into conflict with the law.
Forensic Psychiatry
Consultants to branches of the CJS: Crown, Defence, Court. Civil cases. Mental Health Act Cases/Review Boards. Correctional System. Police. CPSO, LSUC, CMPA, OCT.
Legal Pathways
HospitalDiversion
High CourtJudge/Jury
JailAwaiting Trial
Short SentencesProbation
Lower Court Judge
PoliceArrest
Legal Pathways
Innocent AssessmentHospital
UnfitHospital
NCRHospital
Parole
Prison
High CourtJudge/Jury
Evidence
what constitutes evidence in law is the subject of legal rules that determine whether or not evidence is admissible and if admissible, what weight should be given to it.
Expert Evidence
necessary when it contributes to an understanding of a relevant issue that is outside the ordinary knowledge of the judge or jury.
Expert Evidence R. v. Mohan (1994)
[The expert witness must] have acquired special or peculiar knowledge through study or experience in respect of the matters on which he or she undertakes to testify.
Expert Evidence
if opinion evidence falls within the normal experience of the trier of fact, it will be excluded.
Expert Evidence
R. v. McIntosh (1997) expert evidence provided by a psychology
professor on factors that would impair the witnesses’ ability to accurately identify an assailant was not admitted by the trial judge.
upheld on appeal.
Expert Evidence the evidence was aimed at supporting the
proposition that all witnesses have problems in perception and recall during brief and stressful events.
the expert was, therefore, “reminding the jury of…normal experience.”
Expert Evidence although qualified as an expert in a
particular field may not be sufficient to accept his or her opinion evidence.
general knowledge, or practising in a certain area does not make an individual experts on all issues that may fall within their professional, educational or experiential base.
Admissibility in Canada
R. v. Mohan (1994)Four pre-conditions to the admissibility of
expert evidence:1. relevance;2. necessity in assisting the trier of fact;3. the absence of any exclusionary rule; 4. a properly qualified expert.
Relevance logical relevance and legal relevance.
evidence that is logically relevant to an issue may still be excluded if the probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
Relevance
Although not incorporated into the Mohan test, the helpfulness of evidence is another factor to be considered in determining its admissibility.
Expert Testimony - U.S. Frye Test - Frye v. United States (1923)
Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 1975
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)
Daubert Test - U.S.1. testability of a theory or technique.
2. theory has been peer reviewed.
3. the known or potential error rate.
4. general acceptance rate in the scientific community.
Daubert U.S. courts now scrutinise mental health
professional testimony in criminal proceedings - syndromes and diagnoses have come under scrutiny.
General Electric v. Joyner (1997) Supreme Court cautioned that judges should
be vigilant for experts making unwarranted extrapolations from data.
Daubert appellate courts have applied Daubert
criteria to the admissibility of testimony on:
- battered woman’s syndrome.- rape trauma syndrome.- compulsive gambling syndrome.
Daubert
United States v. Scholl (1997)
the Court held that the expert could testify to the 10 DSM-IV criteria for pathological gambling, but could not elaborate on these criteria or associated features in relationship to the alleged criminal behaviour.
Psychological Tests
Grier v. Educational Services Unit No. 16 (1995)
use of the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) was deemed inadmissible because it had not been validated on the relevant population (i.e., the mentally retarded) or for a particular use (i.e., the detection of child abuse).
Psychological Tests
State v. Cavaliere (1995)
the Supreme Court of New Hampshire ruled the use of the MMPI-2 and MCMI-II in creating profiles of sex offenders was ruled inadmissible.
Psychological Tests
Chapple v. Ganger (1994)
the trial court ruled on the admissibility of certain neuropsychological test batteries relying heavily on the American Psychological Association’s Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing in making it’s ruling.
Daubert reliability of eyewitness testimony.
false confessions.
impact of Munchausen’s disease.
suggestibility of children.
Daubert in the prosecution of allegations of
“recovered” memories of childhood sexual abuse, Courts have increasingly applied Daubert to scrutinise the claim that child victims of sexual abuse can repress and then accurately recover memories of sexual abuse.
Insanity Borrowed term from common parlance
developed into a legal concept.
The challenge for the prosecutor is to ensure the common concept of insanity does not invade the legal concept.
Insanity Prior to M’Naughten in ancient Hebrew law children and the
insane were not held responsible for their acts.
In 1265, Bracton set forth the first explicit standard “an insane person is a person who does not know what he is doing, is lacking in mind and reason, and is not far removed from brutes.”
Prior to M’Naughten
Bracton is credited with the codification of British law including:
actus reus - the physical element or behaviour.
mens rea - the mental element or purpose.
Prior to M’Naughten Wild Beast standard.
Delusion test.
Right-wrong test.
Delusional-volitional.
M’Naughten case (1843) Daniel M’Naughten wanted to kill the
Prime Minister Peel but mistakenly killed Peel’s secretary Edward Drummond.
M’Naughten was acquitted after nine medical experts testified to his insanity.
M’Naughten (1843) Queen Victoria openly angry about the
verdict and complained about a legal system that would allow an NGRI verdict for Oxford and M’Naughten “whilst everybody is morally convinced that both malefactors were perfectly conscious and aware of what they did.”
M’Naughten Rules a defendant was presumed to be sane,
unless it was proved that at the time of the commission of the offence he was “labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did, that he did not know he was wrong.” Tindal L.C.J. (1843)
Mental Disorder & Capacity Cdn. Criminal Justice is based on the
principle that individuals are responsible for their acts.
those who choose to disobey are subject to punishment.
ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Section 16 CCC the law does exempt criminal responsibility
for those who are incapable of making a rational choice.
the M’Naughten Rules, with modest variations, found their way into the Canadian Criminal Code.
Section 16
(1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.
Section 16
(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on a balance of probabilities.
Section 16
(3) The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue.
S. 16 Mental Disorder Criminal Code defines mental disorder in a
circuitous fashion.
“disease of the mind” - legal concept that is up to the judge to decide.
S. 16 Mental Disorder
Court decisions have implied that:
a substantial impairment of mental abilities in the form of obvious psychotic behaviour or delusions had to occur before a person can claim lack of criminal responsibility
S. 16 Mental Disorder the disorder better be internal rather than
externally caused.
the disorder in not transitory.
S. 16 Mental Disorder Courts have determined delirium tremens
and toxic psychosis to be diseases of the mind.
personality disorder - rare. (i.e. those who are unable to appreciate the feelings of the victim do not amount to an insanity defence.
Role of Psychiatrist The speed to which a psychiatrist is called
in will be a major factor in determining the usefulness of the evidence.
Tactically the defence may raise a mental disturbance but allege they are not raising the defence of insanity.
Appreciating Even if the offender has a “disease of the
mind” at the time they committed the criminal act, that will not exempt him from criminal responsibility unless that disorder caused him to be incapable of “appreciating the nature and quality of his act…or of knowing that it was wrong.”
S. 16 - Appreciate Appreciating includes the act of knowing
but knowing does not necessarily include appreciating.
Knowing is awareness, rational perception, a cognitive or intellectual ability.
Appreciating requires an analysis of the of the knowledge and experience.
Appreciating
In a murder case the killer may be aware of the physical character of his act and still be found insane.
Appreciating
Question to be asked:
Did the offender’s mental disorder deprive him of the mental capacity to foresee and measure the physical consequences of his act (or knowing it was wrong)?
Appreciating The fact that the suspect lacked the
appropriate feeling of remorse or guilt doesn’t mean he did not realise the nature and quality of his act.
Lack of remorse, empathy or guilty conscience usually indicates a personality disorder.
S. 16 - “wrong”
R. v. Chaulk - wrong was interpreted as meaning “morally wrong”, not “legally wrong”.
but,R. v. Worth - the word wrong was interpreted
as meaning legally or morally wrong.
S. 16 CCC examination and testing of accused.
review of all forms of evidence.
counterchecking with third parties the story provided by the accused.
Crime Scene Considerations evidence of planning (e.g. bringing a
weapon or other material with him to facilitate the commission of the offence)
flight or escape
cleverness of the crime.
Crime Scene apparent focus to the commission of the
offence.
efforts to avoid unintended victims.
apparent preparation of the field in which the offence was committed.
Crime Scene Destruction or attempted destruction of
inculpatory evidence.
steps taken to to facilitate the crime (e.g. cutting of telephone wires).
base motives (e.g. lust, greed, envy, revenge)
Witness Interviews All observations of the offender.
The offender’s physical condition.
The offender’s apparent orientation.
The offender’s ability to communicate.
Assessment mental state
planning
motive
rational acts before and after the crime.
Assessment flight or escape
cleverness of crime
efforts to avoid unintended victims
preparation of field where the offence would occur
Assessment privacy or concealment
attempts to destroy or conceal evidence
apparent normalcy of life - (job, friends, social life)
deception of authorities, friends or family
Assessment use of false names
operation of any base motive
steps to facilitate the offence
knowledge the act was a crime
Assessment knowledge that society would see act as
wrong.
knowledge of consequences.
apparent long and short term memory.
Assessment any organic conditions
any stressful events before the crime
drugs or alcohol.
medical history
Assessment physical examination
work history
school history
fitness and awareness of one’s rights
Witness Interviews The offender’s co-ordination.
Whether the offender’s actions appeared to be goal oriented or focused.
Ask - demeanour
speech
motor activity
emotional reactions
Ask - Coherence
apparent intelligence
his judgement and insight.