The insanity defense remains one of the most difficult evaluations for a forensic examiner because it requires a retrospective reconstruction of an individual’s mental state and extracting that mental state to specific psycholegal criteria (e.g., capacity to understand wrongfulness) at the time of an alleged crime. Some scholars have suggested that neuroimaging can improve objectivity of insanity evaluations by highlighting brain deficits in the defendant that led to a compromised ability to understand wrongfulness or an inability to comport their behavior to the requirements of the law. This brief review highlights six principal limitations that, to date, have not been appropriately addressed by proponents of using neuroimaging in insanity evaluations. Researchers are encouraged to address these specific limitations to improve its application to insanity defense evaluations. We posit that until this work is completed, neuroimaging provides limited value to insanity evaluations.
Political doctrine has arguably coloured public perceptions of prison, as a lone deterrent, in reducing crime rates. Literature pertaining to public attitudes of criminality reports harsher punitive views towards individuals who have committed criminal offences in the UK, but this has yet to be assessed by education level. In two independently sampled studies, we explored how degree-level classifications more broadly impact the punitive or rehabilitative leaning of an individual (study one, N = 180), and whether associations were replicated for forensic psychology education more specifically, internationally (study two, N = 183). Whilst merely having a degree did not significantly impact punitive judgments, undertaking a forensic psychology degree specifically, relative to criminology or psychology degrees more broadly, resulted in more positive and less punitive attitudes. There is a clear need for transparency of the Criminal Justice System in the provision of better education, allowing members of the public to make better informed decisions of their punitive judgments of individuals who have committed serious criminal offences. Furthermore, a better understanding of perceptions of these individuals and implications they may have on their treatment; the derivation of such opinions implicating governmental policies regarding rehabilitative care in cases of serious crime. Individual implications for the Slovak educational system and the overall importance of forensic psychology as an independent course.
Although evidence indicates that head injury (HI) is prevalent in prisoners, little is known about HI in defendants during the Court process. This study assesses history of HI and persisting sequelae in defendants undergoing Criminal Justice Social Work (CJSW) assessment for Court.A cross sectional, between subjects design was used. HI history was assessed using the Ohio State University TBI Identification-Method and disability with the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended in 46 adult defendants undergoing a CJSW assessment in Scotland. Assessments of mental health, cognitive function, effort on tests and dysexecutive behaviour were also carried out. Comparisons were made between defendants with and without significant HI.Significant HI (SHI) was found in 33/46 (72%) participants and 39% (13/33) of these had persisting disability. Those with SHI were more likely to have moderate-severe mental health difficulties, problematic alcohol or drug use and impairment on the Dysexecutive Questionnaire. Group differences were not found on cognitive tests or in offending history. No CJSW report identified HI.Disability, psychological distress, dysexecutive behaviour and potentially harmful substance use are more common in defendants with SHI. Training and a screening process for HI in CJSW assessments is needed to inform Court disposals and interventions.
