The Limited Relevance of Neuroimaging in Insanity Evaluations

How effective psychological treatments work: mechanisms of change in cognitive behavioural therapy and beyond

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has, in the space of 50 years, evolved into the dominant modality in psychological therapy. Mechanism/s of change remain unclear, however.

AIMS

In this paper, we will describe key features of CBT that account for the pace of past and future developments, with a view to identifying candidates for mechanism of change. We also highlight the distinction between 'common elements' and 'mechanisms of change' in psychological treatment.

METHOD

The history of how behaviour therapy and cognitive therapy developed are considered, culminating in the wide range of strategies which now fall under the heading of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). We consider how the empirical grounding of CBT has led to the massive proliferation of effective treatment strategies. We then consider the relationship between 'common factors' and 'mechanisms of change', and propose that a particular type of psychological flexibility is the mechanism of change not only in CBT but also effective psychological therapies in general.

CONCLUSION

Good psychological therapies should ultimately involve supporting people experiencing psychological difficulties to understand where and how they have become 'stuck' in terms of factors involved in maintaining distress and impairment. A shared understanding is then evaluated and tested with the intention of empowering and enabling them to respond more flexibly and thereby reclaim their life.

Limitations Using Neuroimaging to Reconstruct Mental State After a Crime

Neuroimaging offers great potential to clinicians and researchers for a host of mental and physical conditions. The use of imaging has been trumpeted for forensic psychiatric and psychological evaluations to allow greater insight into the relationship between the brain and behavior. The results of imaging certainly can be used to inform clinical diagnoses; however, there continue to be limitations in using neuroimaging for insanity cases due to limited scientific backing for how neuroimaging can inform retrospective evaluations of mental state. In making this case, this paper reviews the history of the insanity defense and explains how the use of neuroimaging is not an effective way of improving the reliability of insanity defense evaluations.

Translational Application of a Neuro-Scientific Multi-Modal Approach Into Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation: Why and How?

A prominent body of literature indicates that insanity evaluations, which are intended to provide influential expert reports for judges to reach a decision "beyond any reasonable doubt," suffer from a low inter-rater reliability. This paper reviews the limitations of the classical approach to insanity evaluation and the criticisms to the introduction of neuro-scientific approach in court. Here, we explain why in our opinion these criticisms, that seriously hamper the translational implementation of neuroscience into the forensic setting, do not survive scientific scrutiny. Moreover, we discuss how the neuro-scientific multimodal approach may improve the inter-rater reliability in insanity evaluation. Critically, neuroscience does not aim to introduce a brain-based concept of insanity. Indeed, criteria for responsibility and insanity are and should remain clinical. Rather, following the falsificationist approach and the convergence of evidence principle, the neuro-scientific multimodal approach is being proposed as a way to improve reliability of insanity evaluation and to mitigate the influence of cognitive biases on the formulation of insanity opinions, with the final aim to reduce errors and controversies.

A multidisciplinary approach to insanity assessment as a way to reduce cognitive biases

Insanity assessment requires the evaluation of the psychopathological condition that underlies the mens rea. Psychopathological evaluation may be quite challenging due to (i) absence of biomarkers; (ii) low inter-rater reliability; (iii) presence of cognitive bias. This intrinsic low reliability of forensic psychiatric diagnosis does impact on insanity assessment, leading to arbitrary and unjust legal outcomes for the examinee. Thus, strategies to improve the reliability of insanity evaluation are strongly needed. A multidisciplinary approach has been proposed as a way to enrich clinical diagnosis with reliable and biologically founded data, thus minimizing subjectivity, reducing controversies and increasing inter-subject concordance in insanity assessment. By discussing a real case, here we show how the convergence of multiple indices can produce evidence that cannot be denied without introducing logical fallacies. Applying this approach, the forensic discussion will move from the presence/absence of psychopathology to the impact of psychopathology on insanity. This article illustrates how a multidisciplinary evaluation, which integrates neuroscientific methods with the classical insanity assessment, may lead to a more accurate approach in insanity evaluation. Critically, this approach will minimize the impact of cognitive bias on insanity opinion and thus result in an improvement of the whole criminal justice process.