current forensic assessment techniques

8/2/2019 Current Forensic Assessment Techniques

1/23

Current Forensic Assessment

Techniques

Understanding and Appreciating Miranda Rights

Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales

MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-CriminalAdjudication (MACCAT-CA)

HCR-20 for Risk Assessment

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-r)

Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS)


2/23

Understanding and Appreciation of

Miranda Rights

Grisso, T. (1986)Evaluating Competencies: Forensic

Assessments and Instruments. New York: Plenum.

Grisso, T. (1998) Forensic Evaluation of Juveniles. Sarasota,

FL: Professional Resource Press.

Grisso, T. & Schwartz, (2000) Youth on Trial: A

Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press

Fulero, S. & Everington, C. (1995) Assessing competency to

waive Miranda rights in defendants with mental retardation.

Law and Human Behavior, 19, 533-543.


3/23

Miranda issues-continued

Meets Daubert criteria (technique is tested/verified, peer-reviewed

scrutiny, error rate, reliability, validity are known)

Purpose is to quantify both the situational factors as well as suspect

characteristics that are involved in custodial statements

Must have actual statement of Miranda from the jurisdiction in question Was it read or presented to client; did client sign

Condition of the client at the time of arrest, i.e. substances, sleep, etc

Corollary information including psych testing of cognitive capacity

Waivers must be: voluntary, knowing, and intelligent School records of educational achievement, reading level, IQ


4/23

Description of the test:

Assessment involves 4 subtests taking approximately 1 hour

Comprehension of Miranda Rights

Comprehension based on paraphrased description by client,vocabulary used

Comprehension of Miranda Rights-Recognition

Statement read by examiner with 3 paraphrased choices

Comprehension of Miranda Vocabulary

Critical words of Miranda are to be defined by client

Function of Rights in Interrogation

Grasping the significance of warning re:

Nature of interrogation-jeopardy associated with interrogation

Right to Counsel-the function of legal counsel

Right to Silence-protections related to right to silence, jeopardy ofconfessions


5/23

Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment

Scales A systematic method of analyzing mental state at the time of the

crime

This has never been done before despite very poor reliability ofprevious interview assessment methods

Poythress, N.G. & Petrella, R. (1983) The quality of forensicexaminations: An interdisciplinary study. J. of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 51, 76-85.

This test also meets Daubert criteria and has been developed over20 years

Takes into account the following definition of criminalresponsibility

ALI includes 5 operational constructs: mental disease/defect, lackof substantial capacity, appreciation, wrongfulness, and conformity

of conduct to the law The following definitions may be utilized but less data on these

MNaughten includes 4 operational constructs: defect of reason,know, nature and quality of act, wrongfulness

Both have substantial cognitive requirements

Guilty but Mentally Ill is also taken into account


6/23

Before the Test Cautionary notes: 1) cannot substitute for good clinical/forensic

interview; 2) need for thorough neuropsychological assessment toappreciate cognitive behavior; 3) application of anything otherALI standard has limited data and look for updated researchwhich is being done

Careful decision about who does this evaluation, i.e. someonewho has very good clinical as well as appreciation of forensic

issues and who uses multiple sources of information related tothoughts, behavior, and emotions preceding and subsequent totarget time period

Data to provide to your examiner should include:

School records

Medical and Psychiatric records/history Previous criminal history

Examiner should do several comprehensive clinical interviews

Specific evaluation of thoughts, behaviors, substances, andemotions, immediately preceding, during, and after the crime


7/23

Description of the Test:

30 Item guideline for the 3 Insanity decision trees

The 30 items that should be answered after interviews and dataare reviewed are:

1. Reliability of patient self-report which is under his voluntarycontrol

2. Involuntary interference with patients self-report

3. Level of intoxication at the time of the alleged crime (bearing inmind the exclusion of voluntary intoxication)

4. Evidence of brain damage or disease

5. Relationship of brain damage to the commission of the allegedcrime

6. Mental Retardation

7. Relationship of mental retardation to the commission of thealleged crime

8. Observable bizarre behavior at the time of the alleged offense

9. General level of anxiety at the time of the alleged offense

10. Amnesia for the alleged crime (examiners assessmentincluding malingering evaluation)


8/23

Description of the Test-continued 30 Items-continued

11. Delusions at the time of the crime

12. Hallucinations at the time of the crime 13. Depressed mood at the time of the alleged crime

14. Elevated or expansive mood at the time of the alleged crime

15. Patients level of verbal coherence at the time of the allegedcrime

16. Intensity and appropriateness of affect during the commission

of the alleged crime 17. Evidence of formal thought disorder at the time of the alleged

crime

18. Planning and preparation for the alleged crime

19. Awareness of the criminality of behavior during thecommission of the alleged crime

20. Focus on the alleged crime

21. Level of activity in commission of the alleged crime

22. Responsible social behavior during the week prior to thecommission of the alleged crime

23. Patients reported self-control over the alleged criminal

behavior


9/23

Description of the Test-continued

5 Additional assessment criteria for MNaughten and GBMI

standards 26. Impaired judgment on the basis of a mental disorder during the

period of the alleged crime

27. Psychopathologically-based impairment of behavior at the time

of the alleged crime

28. Impaired reality testing at the time of the alleged crime

29. Capacity for self-care of personal and home-environmental

needs at the time of the alleged crime

30. Awareness of wrongfulness of the alleged criminal behavior

All responses should be justified with data and scored 1-6 based on

no information (1) to most severe symptomatology (6)


10/23

MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-

Criminal Adjudication The current competency assessment tools in use have been

superceded by this instrument (Competence AssessmentInstrument-CAI, 1973; Competency Screening Test-CST, 1971;Georgia Court Competency Test-GCCT, 1979; andInterdisciplinary Fitness Interview-IFI, 1984)

They all quickly address rapid identification of competent client,so skewed toward government assessment

None of the old tools adequately address anything but factualunderstanding of Dusky

They do not address a clients ability to reason and assist counsel

The MacCAT systematically, in a standardized, scorable fashion,addresses factual knowledge, reasoning capacity, as well as the

ability to choose salient information to tell a defense attorney inpreparation of a case

The format includes a hypothetical case example as well as inthe clients own case

Meets Daubert criteria and is the result of multidisciplinary usein two cross country, multi-site, MacArthur Foundation research

projects


11/23


12/23

Description of the Test

Section 1: Items 1-8 assesses Understanding Role of defense and prosecuting attorneys

Elements of an offense

What constitutes a lesser offense

Role of the jury

Role of the judge at the trial

Consequences of conviction

Pleading guilty

What rights are waived when pleading guilty

Section 2: Items 9-16 assesses Reasoning Self-defense

Mitigating evidence of prosecutions evidence of intent

Possible provocation in hypothetical

Fear as a motivator

Intoxication as mitigation Seeking information

Weighing consequences

Making comparisons


13/23

Competence Assessment description-continued

Section 3: Items 17-22 assesses Appreciation

This section directly pertains to the clients own circumstances

Likelihood of being treated fairly

Likelihood of being assisted by their defense attorney

Probability of revealing critical information to defense attorney

Assessment of probability of being found guilty

Likely punishment

Likelihood of pleading guilty

These are not just simple answers to questions as the examiner asks

for the thinking behind the response

Paranoid ideation is elicited if it is there

Realistic or unrealistic appraisal of evidence in the case

Scored on a 0, 1, 2 point basis (worst to best response)


14/23

Interpretation of Competence

The scores in each of the 3 domains is compared to one of 3

groups of criterion groups:

Criminal defendants with no mental health history in whom

competence is not questioned

Criminal defendants with various types of mental health disorder

whose competence is not questioned Criminal defendants adjudicated incompetent to proceed as a

result of mental illness

An examiner bias: record the test so that you can have atranscript of what is said


15/23

Risk Assessment and Prediction

of Violence In bold face because it is an area you must

become familiar with in capital

representation!

There are two tools that are currently in use,

remember these names:

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hares PCL-r)

HCR-20 (Webster, Douglas, Eaves, and Hart)


16/23

Dos and Donts

in Risk Assessment

Do familiarize yourself with these techniques; get a preprint

copy of Freedmans paper; make sure your expert is well-versedand familiar

Problems in letting the psych expert use them in capital cases

How to think about:

Origin is to address risk of violence in civil commitment and thoseeligible for conditional release in criminal cases (specificallyMDSO)

Was not designed or intended to address any question in capitalcases where conditional release is never an issue

Risk of violence within prison cannot be addressed by theseinstruments because no norms for it, limited studies of incarceratedprisoners and violence risk

Want to be prepared for risk assessment issues by looking at baserate (prevalence data) of violence within prison settings using theirown data (# of incidents reported)


17/23

Robert Hares Psychopathy Checklist-Revised

15+ years of research originally done in Canada on white,

young, probationers has grown into contribution to DSM-IVantisocial diagnosis

Comes in various forms: the original 20 Item form, the 12 Item

Screening Version, the Youth Version for 12-17 year olds, the

Child Version for 5-12 year olds

Consists of two factors: Factor 1-Interpersonal/Affectivepersonality traits and Factor 2-Socially Deviant Behavior

Each item is scored on a 0-not like client, 1-similar to client but

not enough information to say exactly like client, 2-matches

prototype

The higher the score the more psychopathy the person has

The dangers lie in misuse


18/23

Description of the Test:

Recommendation to get all background records re: school,

medical, criminal, probation/parole reports, work history

Do extensive clinical interview paying careful attention to the

interpersonal style of the interviewee and his answers to an

interview that is outlined in the manual covering: school, work

histories; career goals and finances; health, family of originrelationships, sex/relationships, drug use, child/adolescent and

adult antisocial behavior

Can perform the PCL-r without clinical interview if necessary,

although an additional deception/malingering check is how the

client answers vs. how background history is recorded(discrepancies)

Many proponents argue that it is best to do the record review and

interview then score the client on the measure


19/23

PCL-R Items FACTOR 1 ITEMS

1. Glibness/Superficial

Charm

2. Grandiose sense of self

4. Pathological lying

5. Conning/Manipulative

6. Lack of remorse or guilt

7. Shallow Affect

8. Callous/Lack of empathy

16. Failure to accept

responsibility for

behavior

NO LOADING ONFACTORS

11. Promiscuous sexual

behavior

17. Many short-term marital

relationships

20. Criminal versatility

FACTOR 2 ITEMS

3. Need for stimulation/

proneness to boredom

9. Parasitic lifestyle

10. Poor behavioral controls

(re: anger control)

12. Early behavioral problems 13. Lack of realistic, long-term

goals

14. Impulsivity

15. Irresponsibility

18. Juvenile delinquency

19. Revocation of conditional

release


20/23

PCL-R Items-continued

NO LOADING ON EITHER FACTOR

11. Promiscuous sexual behavior

17. Many short-term marital relationships 20. Criminal versatility


21/23

HCR-20

HCR-20 is a 20 item organizational scheme for collecting(H)istory, (C)linical, (R)isk Management data on the client

The manual states it is an experimental, research tool (pgs. vi and

5)

This instrument and the PCL-R are frequently used together to

construct an actuarial prediction dataset that has been shown to beslightly predictive in the research literature

However, the use of a research instrument does not meet Daubert


22/23

Test Description: The item organization

Historical Items Clinical Items

1. Previous violence 1. Lack of insight

2. Young age at 1st violent incident 2. Negative attitudes

3. Relationship instability 3. Active symptoms of mental

4. Employment problems illness

5. Substance use problems 4. Impulsivity

6. Major mental illness 5. Unresponsive to treatment

7. Psychopathy (PCL-R score) 8. Early maladjustment

9. Personality disorder

10. Prior supervision failure

Risk Management Items

1. Plans lack feasibility These Risk items are

2. Exposure to destabilizers often used to provide

3. Lack of Personal Support context to the appearance

4. Noncompliance with remediation attempts of violent acts

5. Stress


23/23

How would your client score?

You should be aware of this every

time a mental health professionallooks at your client: Be prepared!

current forensic assessment techniques

Documents