Gangstalking is a persecutory belief system espoused by targeted individuals who report being followed, monitored, harassed, or otherwise persecuted by groups of people in their community, often through the coordinated efforts of the government, law enforcement agencies, and strangers. Although the alleged harassment can take the form of conventional stalking, stereotypical gangstalking claims often include added victimization by street theater and directed energy weapons, along with psychotronic warfare, mind control, and voice-to-skull technologies that strain credibility. Although such claims suggest the presence of psychosis, the considerable volume of informational sources that support, validate, and reinforce gangstalking claims expands the differential diagnosis to include persecutory concerns fueled by shared conspiracy theory beliefs as well as mass sociogenic illness. A subset of targeted individuals find themselves in the forensic arena after resorting to violence in the name of perceived self-defense when attempts to seek help have been thwarted or exhausted. With claims of gangstalking on the rise, it is increasingly likely that forensic psychiatrists will be called upon for consultation in such cases. This article provides a concise primer on gangstalking to guide forensic evaluation.
Forensic evaluators commonly conduct evaluations of sexually violent persons (SVPs) but often retrofit generic risk assessments to assess SVP legal criteria. As a 20-year follow-up to "The Risky Enterprise of Risk Assessment," this article critically evaluates updated versions of common risk measures (Historical-Clinical-Risk Management Scale 20 (HCR-20V3), Sexually Violent Risk 20 (SVR-20 V2), Violence Risk Appraisal Guide-Revised (VRAG-R), Static-99R, and Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP V2)) to determine their appropriateness for SVP evaluations. For more balanced appraisals, risk assessments have more recently considered protective factors (Inventory of Offender Risk, Needs, and Strengths (IORNS), Structured Assessment of Protective Factors-Sex Offenders (SAPROF-SO), and Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START)), given their growth in forensic research. Importantly, some risk measures demonstrated substantial improvements. Empirical support for predicting violent sexual recidivism, the legal standard in many SVP jurisdictions, has yet to be reached. Most studies assess general sexual recidivism rather than sexual violence, per se This disconnect presents a professional challenge for evaluators in determining whether previously convicted offenders pose such a risk of sexual violence, following their criminal sentence, as to warrant indefinite civil commitment. This review underscores the need for stronger alignments between SVP legal criteria and forensic assessment instruments to solidly support their empirical use in SVP determinations.
Family-based interventions have been shown to improve behavioral and justice-related outcomes for youth. There has been less focus on whether family-based interventions are effective at reducing youth recidivism, especially for newer or lesser known interventions. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of studies utilizing family-based interventions to address recidivism for youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Of the identified 3,497 unique articles, 235 full-text articles were reviewed and 31 met criteria for inclusion in the review. A variety of family-based interventions were used, including both widely known (e.g., multisystemic therapy) and lesser known interventions. Most studies demonstrated significant reductions in recidivism, with some mixed findings depending on the type of charge, assessment timepoint, measure of recidivism, or moderating factors. The findings from this review corroborate prior research on the effectiveness of well known interventions for reducing recidivism and highlight the promise of newer interventions. The results also highlight the need for additional research in this area, as well as a greater focus on better understanding the moderating factors that may affect treatment outcomes.
Forensic opinion becomes authoritative when its epistemic (knowledge-based) content achieves a certain quality and credence. This is the point at which information qualifies as expert testimony. It is epistemology that traditionally unites the factual state of things (truth) with a level of surety (belief) to become knowledge. The following description of an epistemology, or way of knowing, for forensic psychiatry draws on traditional and contemporary scholarship to propose an alliance of logic and probability for moving from inquiry to knowledge. Using probabilistic reasoning to accrue evidence toward a conclusion, this approach acknowledges the uncertainties of science and human behavior, the biases of observation and research, and the misinformation and doubt of a political era typified by skepticism and distrust.
Solitary confinement continues to be a widespread practice among jails and prisons in the United States, despite extensive evidence of its negative effects on mental health, particularly for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI). Given this, it is imperative for forensic mental health clinicians, especially those working in correctional settings, to be aware of the laws and policies that govern who can be placed in solitary confinement, for what reasons, and for how long. This article summarizes each state's statutes, administrative codes, and department policies on solitary confinement regarding people with SMI, highlighting the wide variation in the treatment of individuals with SMI in the correctional system across states and the need for uniform legislation that restricts the use of solitary confinement for people with SMI. This knowledge can help clinicians to better understand the ways in which their patients may be affected by the practice of solitary confinement and, ultimately, how to advocate for incarcerated individuals placed in solitary confinement to help minimize adverse outcomes.
