Quality of criminal responsibility reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary

Defining the tasks of clinical reasoning in forensic psychiatric evaluation: Psychomedicolegal analysis competency

Objective

Inconsistency in the quality of forensic psychiatry report has been criticized for several years. Yet, there are limited guidelines to provide minimally satisfactory forensic psychiatry evaluation conducted by psychiatrists. In addition to the impact towards the forensic psychiatry service, this lack of standardized guidelines may impact the relevant competency development and its various teaching methods of forensic psychiatry among general psychiatrists. Therefore, this study aims to identify components of psychomedicolegal analysis competency as a form of clinical reasoning in forensic psychiatry.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review and expert panel discussions were conducted simultaneously to formulate an initial list of psychomedicolegal analysis competency. A total of fourteen experts were chosen based on their expertise in different disciplines that have intersections with forensic psychiatry and the general psychiatry curriculum (e.g. general psychiatrist, forensic psychiatrists and psychologist, law practitioner, and medical education director). The expert panel were instructed to score and provide feedbacks on the items of the initial list. Four-point Likert scale were used in order for the experts to express the relevancy of the core competence to forensic psychiatry practice until it reached the consensus.

Results

The final 60 items of psychomedicolegal analysis competency were developed after three rounds of Delphi technique and reached a consensus (>70% and medians score of at least 3,25). These competency then categorized into four steps 1) preparing the case (Item 1-11), 2) conducting the evaluation (Item 12-41), 3) writing the report (42-51), and 4) giving expert opinion in court (Item 52-60).

Conclusion

We developed 60 items of psychomedicolegal analysis competency that can be used as a standardized guide for psychiatrists to conduct forensic psychiatry evaluation, write the report and provide expert opinion in court. Implementation of this guideline can be used to shape further forensic psychiatry education for general psychiatrist and psychiatry residency.

What Makes Forensic Psychiatric Experts Change Their Opinion in Supplemental Evaluations?

There are cases in forensic psychiatric evaluations with inconclusive information or with important information missing. In such situations, when new information becomes available the judge may ask an expert to supplement his/her report in the light of new information. For the purpose of this study, we collected 42 supplemental evaluations written in the University Psychiatric Hospital Vrapče to determine possible factors which were associated with changes in supplemental evaluations. The following data were gathered: demographic data, types of criminal offenses, reasons for the supplement evaluation, court questions, and diagnoses. Changes in supplemental evaluations occured more often when the defendants were diagnosed with a personality disorder (PD) only, compared to those who had a PD with a comorbidity, especially substance use disorders. Defendants with the diagnosis of a substance use disorder were 63.7% less likely to have changed experts' evaluations. The evaluations remained the same when the reason for supplemental evaluations were new witnesses' testimonies. Considering the principle of economy of actions in a judiciary system, a more critical approach should be taken when the judge requests a supplemental report.

Use of assessment instruments in forensic evaluations of criminal responsibility in Norway

OBJECTIVES

Assessment instruments are often used to enhance quality and objectivity in therapeutic and legal settings. We aimed to explore the use of instruments in Norwegian reports of forensic evaluations of criminal responsibility; specifically, whether this use was associated with diagnostic and forensic conclusions.

METHODS

Our study has an exploratory cross-sectional design. We examined 500 reports filed with the Norwegian Board of Forensic Medicine in 2009-2018 regarding defendants indicted for the most serious violent crimes. The first author coded data from all reports according to a registration form developed for this study. Two co-authors then coded a random sample of 50 reports, and inter-rater reliability measures were calculated. The first author coded 41 reports for calculation of intra-rater reliability. Descriptive statistics are presented for the use of assessment instruments, and a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was used to estimate associations between the use of instruments and diagnostic and forensic conclusions.

RESULTS

Instruments were used in 50.0% of reports. The Wechler's Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), Historical Clinical Risk-20 (HCR-20), and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM disorders (SCID I), were used in 15.8, 13.8, and 9.0% of reports, respectively. The use of instruments increased from 36% in 2009 to 58% in 2015; then decreased to 49% in 2018. Teams of two experts wrote 98.0% of reports, and 43.4% of these teams comprised two psychiatrists. In 20.0% of reports, the diagnostic conclusion was schizophrenia, and in 8.8% it was other psychotic disorders. A conclusion of criminal irresponsibility was given in 25.8% of reports. Instruments were more often used in reports written by teams that comprised both a psychiatrist and a psychologist, compared to reports by two psychiatrists. The use of instruments was strongly associated with both diagnostic and forensic conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Instruments were used in 50% of reports on forensic evaluations of criminal responsibility in Norway, and their use increased during the study period. Use of instruments was associated with diagnostic and forensic conclusions.

Improving Criminal Responsibility Determinations Using Structured Professional Judgment

Forensic psychologists commonly utilize unstructured clinical judgment in aggregating clinical and forensic information in forming opinions. Unstructured clinical judgment is prone to evaluator bias and suboptimal levels of inter-rater reliability. This article proposes Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) methods as a potential remedy. Following a review of canonical forensic assessment models, the prevalence of bias in forensic judgments, and inter-rater agreement in criminal responsibility (CR) determinations, this article presents a SPJ model for CR evaluations translated from violence risk assessment methodology. A systematic user-friendly methodology is described, applying procedural checklists, application of a mental state at time of the offense (MSO) model using structured data collection methods, aggregation of empirical evidence guidelines, and post-hoc hypothesis testing using the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH). A case study describes application of the procedural and CR decision model in a complex homicide case. The model demonstrates the power and efficacy of the application of SPJ to forensic decision-making and is relevant to other types of forensic assessment (e.g., competency to stand trial, post-acquittal release decision-making).

Factors related to bias in forensic psychiatric assessments in criminal matters: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Identify factors related to bias in forensic psychiatric assessments in criminal matters.

METHOD

Based on the PRISMA guidelines, we searched the following keywords with Boolean operators: (criminal responsibility OR legal responsibility OR neurolaw OR insanity defense) AND (forensic psychiatry OR assessment OR evaluation OR bias OR decision-making OR capacity OR psychometric). The search included publications from January 1998 to December 2019 in the English language, published in PubMed, Web of Science, Taylor & Francis, and Scopus databases.

RESULTS

The final sample consisted of 30 articles separated into three groups: (1) legal elements and the wording of expert reports, (2) psychometric tools applied to criminal inquiries, and (3) expert forensic technique and inter-examiner agreement.

DISCUSSION

Multiple factors for biases were identified: difficulties in equivalence between legal and psychiatric terminologies, elements of countertransference between the expert and the examinee, absence of standardization of expert evaluations, low quality of expert reports, differences in the training of professionals involved in the evaluations, use of psychometric tools, number of professionals working on the same case, and the methodology adopted. Psychometric tools developed specifically for forensic psychiatric evaluations allowed the introduction of objective parameters in expert evaluations. Special attention was found in psychometric tools structured as vignettes that allowed the detailed evaluation of legal capacities, present in the legal texts. Psychometric tools in checklist format appeared to be more susceptible to interviewer biases.

CONCLUSION

The control of inherent biases in forensic psychiatry assessments on criminal matters remains a current challenge, difficult to control in forensic practice. The identification, control and avoidance of them may improve the quality the forensic psychiatric expertise in criminal matters.

Neuroscience-based Psychiatric Assessments of Criminal Responsibility: Beyond Self-Report?

Many legal systems have an insanity defense, which means that although a person has committed a crime, she is not held criminally responsible for the act. A challenge with regard to these assessments is that forensic psychiatrists have to rely to a considerable extent on the defendant's self-report. Could neuroscience be a way to make these evaluations more objective? The current value of neuroimaging in insanity assessments will be examined. The author argues that neuroscience can be valuable for diagnosing neurological illnesses, rather than psychiatric disorders. Next, he discusses to what extent neurotechnological 'mind reading' techniques, if they would become available in the future, could be useful to get beyond self-report in forensic psychiatry.

Criminal Responsibility Scale: Development and Validation of a Psychometric Tool Structured in Clinical Vignettes for Criminal Responsibility Assessments in Brazil

Criminal responsibility assessment is undertaken by psychologists or psychiatrists to assess offenders' legal capacities, which vary among countries or regional legislations. There are two psychometric tools (i.e., checklists) validated for criminal responsibility assessment: the Roger Criminal Responsibility Scale, and the rating scale of criminal responsibility for mentally disordered offenders. Despite the existence of psychometric tools structured in clinical vignettes for evaluating legal capacities, none serve the purpose of assessing criminal responsibility. This study aims to validate a novel psychometric tool structured in vignettes for the assessment of criminal responsibility called the "Criminal Responsibility Scale." We applied the tool to 88 defendants referred for criminal responsibility assessment in a forensic medical institute in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from December 2017 to December 2018. The validity of the Criminal Responsibility Scale and subscales were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis. The two-factor solution proved satisfactory and met the needs for practical application of the tool (Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin = 0.82; p < 0.001). Moreover, the inter-rater reliability was evaluated by comparing the tool's final score with that of the expert's conclusion in each case and was found to be satisfactory (k = 0.667-1.0), with a resulting cutoff point of 30.50 (±2) and a Youden index of 0.509. Hence, the Criminal Responsibility Scale is an effective psychometric tool for assessments of criminal responsibility that may encourage future research in assessments of legal capacity with clinical vignette-based psychometric instruments.

Mentally disordered offenders and the law: Research update on the insanity defense, 2004-2019

The insanity defense is among the most controversial legal constructs that has attracted the attention of scholars, practitioners and policy makers. Here, we conducted a systematic review of the literature spanning 2004 to 2019 that produced 58 studies of insanity defense research. Findings are organized according to: (1) assessments and assessment-related issues, (2) juror decision-making in defense trials, (3) characteristics of insanity acquittees, (4) release recommendations for insanity acquittees, (5) revocation of conditional release status of insanity acquittees, and (6) additional areas of insanity defense research. Implications of the research for the insanity defense and cognate legal issues are proffered.

Insanity defense typology

Much has been written about how to conduct insanity defense evaluations, as well as how to operationalize the legal definitions of insanity. However, the insanity defense has never been categorized by a typology. This article describes a typology of six subtypes of the insanity defense: paranoid self-defense, "but it's mine," erotomanic stalking, deific decree, disorganized, and false report. Knowledge of these subtypes, while not all inclusive, can inform insanity defense evaluations, guide training, and potentially increase the reliability of forensic evaluators' opinions. In addition, such subtypes can generate future research regarding prevalence, interrater reliability, and associated features of the different subtypes.

Is the French criminal psychiatric assessment in crisis?

The criminal psychiatric assessment in France seems to be facing growing criticism related to disagreements between experts and, on the other hand, a lack of interest of psychiatrists for the assessment. We start by explaining the current framework of the criminal psychiatric assessment in France, which differs from the assessment used in English-speaking countries, where Roman law applies. Then, we will describe the disagreements through a literature review and two clinical vignettes. Finally, we will try to understand the causes of discrepancies between experts and the reasons for a supposed lack of interest of the psychiatrists for the expertise. For this, we conducted a survey among the psychiatric experts. We individually questioned experts on the discrepancies and on their awareness of the expertise. We found that 75% of the experts we surveyed had already faced the divergent opinion of a colleague. In addition, the experts were divided on their conclusions related to the fictional scenario we gave them for an a priori assessment (a person with schizophrenia who was accused of murder), particularly in the specific contexts that we submitted to them. The main cause of disagreement between experts was the various schools of thought that influence the psychiatric experts in the forensic discussion and, therefore, the conclusions of a case. Moreover, the experts believed that the decrease in the number of psychiatric experts could be attributed to the adverse financial situation of the assessment, the considerable workload required, and the extensive responsibility that falls on the expert. Calling on a team of forensic experts to perform assessments seems to be the first solution to this crisis. Furthermore, if the experts were better compensated for the assessments, more people would want to undertake this work.

Fitness to stand trial evaluation challenges in the United States: Some comparisons with South Africa

Like the Republic of South Africa, the United States faces serious challenges regarding fitness to stand trial evaluations, including long waitlists for individuals awaiting such evaluations. Some similarities exist between the RSA and US evaluation systems, including an increasing number of referrals for fitness to stand trial evaluations, limited evaluator resources, and concerns about the significant restrictions on civil liberties for those awaiting evaluation. Recently, the United States has implemented several different solutions to address these issues. These have included broadening the eligibility requirements for fitness to stand trial evaluators, utilizing localized and short-term settings for fitness to stand trial evaluations, and a host of other ideas. This article examines these different solutions, discusses their relevance and potential effectiveness for the RSA evaluation system, and makes recommendations for consideration by policy makers and mental health professionals.

Adjudicating mentally disordered offenders in Ghana: The criminal and mental health legislations

The involvement of mentally disordered offenders (MDOs) in the criminal justice system (CJS) is currently a major public health concern. This has culminated in several empirical researches over the years, with a particular focus on addressing the problem. The present study examines the criminal and the mental health legislations available to offenders raising fitness to stand trial issues, as well as those pleading insanity at the time of the offense (insanity defense) in Ghana. The legislations are examined within a framework of reducing the overrepresentation of MDOs in the CJS. In doing so, comparisons are made to similar legislations in other commonwealth jurisdictions, when necessary. Regarding fitness to stand trial, it is evident that the Ghanaian legislation does not contain discrete fitness indicators, relative to, for instance, Canada. Yet, it is interesting that the terminologies 'unsound mind' and 'incapable of making a defence' used in the proviso convey similar meaning and requirements to those used in other jurisdictions. The insanity defense standard, on the other hand, is also heavily influenced by the M'Naughton Rules in England. The defense consists of two separate cognitive tests, each of which can result in an acquittal. One of the tests strictly emphasizes knowledge of the nature and consequences of the act while knowledge of the wrongness of the criminal act is implied in the other. However, none of the tests takes into consideration uncontrollable impulse arising from mental disorder. The study proposes some revisions and amendments to the insanity legislation in its current formulation. Recommendations are also offered for critical areas that warrant research attention in relation to MDOs in Ghana, and in Africa as a whole.

The forensic psychiatric report

The construction of a written forensic report is a core component of forensic practice, demonstrating the evaluator's skill in conducting the evaluation and in communicating relevant information to the legal audience in an effective manner. Although communication skills and quality of written documentation are important in clinical psychiatry generally, they form the sine qua non of successful forensic work, which consists in telling complex stories in a coherent and compelling fashion. High quality forensic reports require careful preparation from the earliest stages of work on a case. They generally follow an expected structure, which permits the evaluator to provide all the data necessary to form a carefully reasoned opinion that addresses the legal questions posed. Formats and content of reports vary according to the type of case and the circumstances of the evaluation and so require flexibility within customary frameworks. The style and quality of writing are critical to the crafting of forensic reports. The effects on legal decision-makers of various approaches to the presentation of information in reports has not been studied empirically, but guidance from experienced forensic psychiatrists is available. There is a small body of research on quality improvement in forensic writing, and further empiric study is warranted.