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

Artificial intelligence in insanity evaluation. Potential opportunities and current challenges

The formulation of a scientific opinion on whether the individual who committed a crime should be held responsible for his/her actions or should be considered not responsible by reason of insanity is very difficult. Indeed, forensic psychopathological decision on insanity is highly prone to errors and is affected by human cognitive biases, resulting in low inter-rater reliability. In this context, artificial intelligence can be extremely useful to improve the inter-subjectivity of insanity evaluation. In this paper, we discuss the possible applications of artificial intelligence in this field as well as the challenges and pitfalls that hamper the effective implementation of AI in insanity evaluation. In particular, thus far, it is possible to apply only supervised algorithms without knowing which is the ground truth and which data should be used to train and test the algorithms. In addition, it is not known which percentage of accuracy of the algorithms is sufficient to support partial or total insanity, nor which are the boundaries between sanity and partial or total insanity. Finally, ethical aspects have not been sufficiently investigated. We conclude that these pitfalls should be resolved before AI can be safely and reliably applied in criminal trials.

Acquired Pedophilia: international Delphi-method-based consensus guidelines

Idiopathic and acquired pedophilia are two different disorders with two different etiologies. However, the differential diagnosis is still very difficult, as the behavioral indicators used to discriminate the two forms of pedophilia are underexplored, and clinicians are still devoid of clear guidelines describing the clinical and neuroscientific investigations suggested to help them with this difficult task. Furthermore, the consequences of misdiagnosis are not known, and a consensus regarding the legal consequences for the two kinds of offenders is still lacking. The present study used the Delphi method to reach a global consensus on the following six topics: behavioral indicators/red flags helpful for differential diagnosis; neurological conditions potentially leading to acquired pedophilia; neuroscientific investigations important for a correct understanding of the case; consequences of misdiagnosis; legal consequences; and issues and future perspectives. An international and multidisciplinary board of scientists and clinicians took part in the consensus statements as Delphi members. The Delphi panel comprised 52 raters with interdisciplinary competencies, including neurologists, psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, forensic psychologists, expert in ethics, etc. The final recommendations consisted of 63 statements covering the six different topics. The current study is the first expert consensus on a delicate topic such as pedophilia. Important exploitable consensual recommendations that can ultimately be of immediate use by clinicians to help with differential diagnosis and plan and guide therapeutic interventions are described, as well as future perspectives for researchers.

Decision-Making Within Forensic Psychiatric Investigations: The Use of Various Information Sources by Different Expert Groups to Reach Conclusions on Legal Insanity

BACKGROUND

Which type of information experts use to make decisions regarding legal insanity within forensic psychiatric investigations (FPI) is relatively unknown, both in general and when considering variations due to case context. It is important to explore this area to be able to counteract the effects of various kinds of cognitive bias.

METHOD

The aim was to explore whether FPI expert groups differed regarding case-specific as well as general use of information types required to make decisions on severe mental disorder (SMD). Three FPI case vignettes were presented to three professional groups involved in FPIs in Sweden (n = 41): forensic psychiatrists (n = 15), psychologists (n = 15), and social workers (n = 11). The participants reported which types of information they required to reach conclusions regarding SMD in each case. They also reported which types of information they had used within general FPI praxis during the previous year and the information types' perceived usefulness.

RESULTS

The expert groups differed somewhat regarding what type of information they required for the cases (e.g., results from cognitive testing), but some information was required in all cases (e.g., client's self-report). Regarding the preliminary assessment of SMD in the three cases, minor differences were found. Within the general FPI praxis, experts reported using several information types, while the general perceived usefulness of these sources varied.

DISCUSSION

The professional groups relied partly on a "core" of information sources, but some case-specific adaptations were found. The professional groups' inclination to suspect SMD also varied somewhat. This indicates a need to explore the potential consequences of these similarities and differences.

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.