by Norm Ornstein
The Atlantic
Originally published June 8, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
And, for people with the most serious diseases, who cannot recognize they are ill or who have deep psychoses that leave them detached from much of reality, we need to recalibrate the balance between civil liberties and the need to provide real treatment—the kind of wraparound, assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) that Leifman has pioneered in Florida—while making it easier, with appropriate safeguards, for family members to intervene to help their loved ones.
In Washington, the good news is that reforming the system to deal with mental illness is one of the few areas where there is serious bipartisan cooperation and action—including, in the Senate, Democrats like Debbie Stabenow, Chris Murphy, and Al Franken, and Republicans like Roy Blunt, Bill Cassidy, and John Cornyn. In the House, there’s a major bill cosponsored by Republican Tim Murphy, the body’s only psychologist, and Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson, a former psychiatric nurse.
Of course, there is bad news—this is American politics in 2016. The highly dysfunctional Congress is stymied from action so far even in areas that have broad and deep bipartisan support, like Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, the opioid crisis, and criminal-justice reform.
The article is here.
Showing posts with label Forensic Psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Forensic Psychology. Show all posts
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Monday, June 6, 2016
Stopping the revolving prison door for the mentally ill
by Courtenay Harris Bond
Phillie.com
Originally posted May 10, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
But the unfortunate reality right now is that many people with serious mental illness who commit even minor infractions are locked up, making over-crowded prisons and jails responsible for mental health services they are ill equipped to deal with.
“The police are called on to do too much, and the health care system is not doing enough,” Sisti said. “The whole idea that the police are now front-line mental health workers shows that we’ve abdicated our responsibilities as health care professionals.”
“The police in their best efforts aren’t equipped with the tools”—psychiatric medications, for example, that only physicians and nurses can administer—“to de-escalate some of these situations,” added Cyndi Rickards, an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Justice Studies at Drexel.
Dr. Philip Candilis, director of the forensic psychiatry fellowship at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washington, described a jail diversion program in Arlington, Va., where courts work with social service agencies to aid people struggling with mental illness who find themselves in trouble with the law. Mental health courts in Philadelphia and Washington function in a similar way.
The article is here.
Phillie.com
Originally posted May 10, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
But the unfortunate reality right now is that many people with serious mental illness who commit even minor infractions are locked up, making over-crowded prisons and jails responsible for mental health services they are ill equipped to deal with.
“The police are called on to do too much, and the health care system is not doing enough,” Sisti said. “The whole idea that the police are now front-line mental health workers shows that we’ve abdicated our responsibilities as health care professionals.”
“The police in their best efforts aren’t equipped with the tools”—psychiatric medications, for example, that only physicians and nurses can administer—“to de-escalate some of these situations,” added Cyndi Rickards, an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Justice Studies at Drexel.
Dr. Philip Candilis, director of the forensic psychiatry fellowship at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washington, described a jail diversion program in Arlington, Va., where courts work with social service agencies to aid people struggling with mental illness who find themselves in trouble with the law. Mental health courts in Philadelphia and Washington function in a similar way.
The article is here.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Using Internet and Social Media Data as Collateral Sources of Information in Forensic Evaluations
By Pirelli, G., Otto, R.K., and Estoup, A.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Jan 11 , 2016
Abstract
Increasing use of Internet search engines (e.g., Google), social networking sites (e.g., Facebook), and commentary vehicles (e.g., Twitter) has prompted discussion regarding users’ privacy. Whereas there is a growing professional literature pertaining to the use of data drawn from social media sources in employment, university admissions, and health-care settings, few publications address the use of Internet data in forensic mental health assessment contexts. In this paper, we consider the appropriateness of professionals seeking and incorporating Internet and social media data when conducting forensic psychological evaluations, and we set forth a call for research and additional commentary.
The article is here.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Jan 11 , 2016
Abstract
Increasing use of Internet search engines (e.g., Google), social networking sites (e.g., Facebook), and commentary vehicles (e.g., Twitter) has prompted discussion regarding users’ privacy. Whereas there is a growing professional literature pertaining to the use of data drawn from social media sources in employment, university admissions, and health-care settings, few publications address the use of Internet data in forensic mental health assessment contexts. In this paper, we consider the appropriateness of professionals seeking and incorporating Internet and social media data when conducting forensic psychological evaluations, and we set forth a call for research and additional commentary.
The article is here.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Do we still need to study the death penalty?
By Ryan J. Winter
The Monitor on Psychology
2015, Vol 46, No. 7
Print version: page 32
Recent Gallup polling shows support for the death penalty in the United States is at a 40-year low, with the 63 percent favorability rating a stark contrast to the 80 percent who supported it in the 1990s.1 When comparing death to life in prison, death favorability drops to 42 percent.2 Meanwhile, the number of death verdicts has also dropped, with only 73 defendants sentenced to death and 35 executed in 2014. Contrast this with 279 sentences and 98 executions in 1999.3 Of 32 death penalty states, only seven carried out executions in 2014, the fewest in 25 years. Further, eight states have abolished the death penalty since 2007, and no states have added the penalty.
As its reign appears to be over, there's no need to continue studying the death penalty, right?
Not so fast. Focusing on the malicious actions of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, prosecutors and defense attorneys seemingly set aside all pretenses about his guilt to focus on the only trial phase worth attention: whether he deserved death. Half a country away, James Holmes — the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooter — began his trial with a prosecution equally zealous in pursuing death.
The entire article is here.
The Monitor on Psychology
2015, Vol 46, No. 7
Print version: page 32
Recent Gallup polling shows support for the death penalty in the United States is at a 40-year low, with the 63 percent favorability rating a stark contrast to the 80 percent who supported it in the 1990s.1 When comparing death to life in prison, death favorability drops to 42 percent.2 Meanwhile, the number of death verdicts has also dropped, with only 73 defendants sentenced to death and 35 executed in 2014. Contrast this with 279 sentences and 98 executions in 1999.3 Of 32 death penalty states, only seven carried out executions in 2014, the fewest in 25 years. Further, eight states have abolished the death penalty since 2007, and no states have added the penalty.
As its reign appears to be over, there's no need to continue studying the death penalty, right?
Not so fast. Focusing on the malicious actions of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, prosecutors and defense attorneys seemingly set aside all pretenses about his guilt to focus on the only trial phase worth attention: whether he deserved death. Half a country away, James Holmes — the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooter — began his trial with a prosecution equally zealous in pursuing death.
The entire article is here.
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Making Sex Offenders Pay — and Pay and Pay and Pay:
By Stephen J. Dubner
Freakonomics Podcast
Originally published June 10, 2015
The gist of this episode: Sure, sex crimes are horrific, and the perpetrators deserve to be punished harshly. But society keeps exacting costs — out-of-pocket and otherwise — long after the prison sentence has been served.
The podcast page is here.
Freakonomics Podcast
Originally published June 10, 2015
The gist of this episode: Sure, sex crimes are horrific, and the perpetrators deserve to be punished harshly. But society keeps exacting costs — out-of-pocket and otherwise — long after the prison sentence has been served.
The podcast page is here.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Montco woman, Temple professor not a licensed psychologist
By Jo Ciavaglia
Bucks County Courier Times
Originally posted February 4, 2015
Susan Schecter-Cornbluth swore under oath that she was a practicing clinical psychologist in Pennsylvania, as well as licensed to practice family and marriage therapy in New Jersey.
But Solebury police say that the 41-year-old Montgomery County woman, who also teaches psychology at Temple University, lied.
They said Schecter-Cornbluth, of Ambler, committed perjury in December 2013 when she testified as an “expert witness” in a Bucks County family court hearing that she was a “licensed clinical psychologist” in New Jersey.
The entire article is here.
Bucks County Courier Times
Originally posted February 4, 2015
Susan Schecter-Cornbluth swore under oath that she was a practicing clinical psychologist in Pennsylvania, as well as licensed to practice family and marriage therapy in New Jersey.
But Solebury police say that the 41-year-old Montgomery County woman, who also teaches psychology at Temple University, lied.
They said Schecter-Cornbluth, of Ambler, committed perjury in December 2013 when she testified as an “expert witness” in a Bucks County family court hearing that she was a “licensed clinical psychologist” in New Jersey.
The entire article is here.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Does Moral Responsibility Come in Degrees?
By Justin Caouette
Flickers of Freedom Blog
Originally published January 14, 2015
Here are two excerpts:
I think Mele is right to say that moral responsibility is commonly regarded as a matter of degree, but I’m not so sure that such an assumption is warranted. And, if the assumption is warranted, I think it’s worthwhile to get clear on why this is so. Investigating this so-called degree feature might help to shed light on the nature of moral responsibility itself. Further, if one holds that moral responsibility does come in degrees it might limit what one can say about the nature of moral responsibility and this conclusion could be fruitful as well for those trying to uncover the the root of the differences between competing views.
(cut)
So, the purpose of posting on this topic is simply to get a sense of how can we make sense of moral responsibility as coming in degrees. Must we assume that blameworthiness and moral responsibility is the same thing to make sense of this? And, what does it even mean to say that moral responsibility comes in degrees?
The entire blog post, and some great responses, are here.
Editor's Note: These types of articles are particularly relevant for forensic psychology, and helping to understand how psychologists help describe mitigating factors.
Moral responsibility is also easily applied to psychotherapy.
Flickers of Freedom Blog
Originally published January 14, 2015
Here are two excerpts:
I think Mele is right to say that moral responsibility is commonly regarded as a matter of degree, but I’m not so sure that such an assumption is warranted. And, if the assumption is warranted, I think it’s worthwhile to get clear on why this is so. Investigating this so-called degree feature might help to shed light on the nature of moral responsibility itself. Further, if one holds that moral responsibility does come in degrees it might limit what one can say about the nature of moral responsibility and this conclusion could be fruitful as well for those trying to uncover the the root of the differences between competing views.
(cut)
So, the purpose of posting on this topic is simply to get a sense of how can we make sense of moral responsibility as coming in degrees. Must we assume that blameworthiness and moral responsibility is the same thing to make sense of this? And, what does it even mean to say that moral responsibility comes in degrees?
The entire blog post, and some great responses, are here.
Editor's Note: These types of articles are particularly relevant for forensic psychology, and helping to understand how psychologists help describe mitigating factors.
Moral responsibility is also easily applied to psychotherapy.
Friday, January 16, 2015
My brain made me do it, but does that matter?
By Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
The Conversation
Originally published December 12, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
Despite some rhetoric, almost nobody really believes that the fact that your brain made you do it is by itself enough to excuse you from moral responsibility. On the other side, almost everybody agrees that some brain states, such as seizures, do remove moral responsibility. The real issues lie in the middle.
What about mental illnesses? Addictions? Compulsions? Brainwashing? Hypnosis? Tumors? Coercion? Alien hand syndrome? Multiple personality disorder? These cases are all tricky, so philosophers disagree about which people in these conditions are responsible — and why. Nonetheless, these difficult cases do not show that there is no difference between seizures and normal desires, just as twilight does not show that there is no difference between night and day. It is hard to draw a line, but that does not mean that there is no line.
The entire article is here.
The Conversation
Originally published December 12, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
Despite some rhetoric, almost nobody really believes that the fact that your brain made you do it is by itself enough to excuse you from moral responsibility. On the other side, almost everybody agrees that some brain states, such as seizures, do remove moral responsibility. The real issues lie in the middle.
What about mental illnesses? Addictions? Compulsions? Brainwashing? Hypnosis? Tumors? Coercion? Alien hand syndrome? Multiple personality disorder? These cases are all tricky, so philosophers disagree about which people in these conditions are responsible — and why. Nonetheless, these difficult cases do not show that there is no difference between seizures and normal desires, just as twilight does not show that there is no difference between night and day. It is hard to draw a line, but that does not mean that there is no line.
The entire article is here.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Framed by forensics
Junky, out-of-date science fuels jury errors and tragic miscarriages of justice. How can we throw it out of court?
By Douglas Starr
Aeon Magazine
Originally published
Here is an excerpt:
Rivera’s case represents a tragic miscarriage of justice. Seen another way, it’s also the result of bad science and anti-scientific thinking – from the police’s coercive interview of a vulnerable person, to the jury’s acceptance of a false confession over physical evidence, including DNA.
Unfortunately, Rivera’s case is not unique. Hundreds of innocent people have been convicted by bad science, permitting an equal number of perpetrators to go free. It’s impossible to know how often this happens, but the growing number of DNA-related exonerations points to false convictions as the collateral damage of our legal system. Part of the problem involves faulty forensics: contrary to what we might see in the CSI drama shows on TV, few forensic labs are state-of-the-art, and they don’t always use scientific techniques. According to the US National Academy of Sciences, none of the traditional forensic techniques, such as hair comparison, bite-mark analysis or ballistics analysis, qualifies as rigorous, reproducible science. But it’s not just forensics: bad science is marbled throughout our legal system, from the way police interrogate suspects to the decisions judges make on whether to admit certain evidence in court.
The entire article is here.
By Douglas Starr
Aeon Magazine
Originally published
Here is an excerpt:
Rivera’s case represents a tragic miscarriage of justice. Seen another way, it’s also the result of bad science and anti-scientific thinking – from the police’s coercive interview of a vulnerable person, to the jury’s acceptance of a false confession over physical evidence, including DNA.
Unfortunately, Rivera’s case is not unique. Hundreds of innocent people have been convicted by bad science, permitting an equal number of perpetrators to go free. It’s impossible to know how often this happens, but the growing number of DNA-related exonerations points to false convictions as the collateral damage of our legal system. Part of the problem involves faulty forensics: contrary to what we might see in the CSI drama shows on TV, few forensic labs are state-of-the-art, and they don’t always use scientific techniques. According to the US National Academy of Sciences, none of the traditional forensic techniques, such as hair comparison, bite-mark analysis or ballistics analysis, qualifies as rigorous, reproducible science. But it’s not just forensics: bad science is marbled throughout our legal system, from the way police interrogate suspects to the decisions judges make on whether to admit certain evidence in court.
The entire article is here.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Making sense of a court's two cents
By David DeMatteo, JD, PhD, Jaymes Fairfax-Columbo, BA, and Daniel A. Krauss, JD, PhD
The Monitor on Psychology
December 2014, Vol 45, No. 11
Print version: page 24
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently decided two cases that address whether parties can use expert witnesses to help juries assess lay witness testimony. In one case, Commonwealth v. Walker (2014), the court lifted a ban on the admissibility of expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification. In the other case, Commonwealth v. Alicia (2014), the court held that expert testimony regarding false confessions was inadmissible.
Although the two outcomes diverged, robust research suggests that eyewitness identification and false confessions pose significant problems for the legal system (Wells et al., 1998; Kassin et al., 2010). So, how did the court justify its differing opinions? And what lessons can be learned from these discrepant decisions concerning how social science can influence legal decisions?
The entire article is here.
The Monitor on Psychology
December 2014, Vol 45, No. 11
Print version: page 24
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently decided two cases that address whether parties can use expert witnesses to help juries assess lay witness testimony. In one case, Commonwealth v. Walker (2014), the court lifted a ban on the admissibility of expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification. In the other case, Commonwealth v. Alicia (2014), the court held that expert testimony regarding false confessions was inadmissible.
Although the two outcomes diverged, robust research suggests that eyewitness identification and false confessions pose significant problems for the legal system (Wells et al., 1998; Kassin et al., 2010). So, how did the court justify its differing opinions? And what lessons can be learned from these discrepant decisions concerning how social science can influence legal decisions?
The entire article is here.
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Psychologists and psychiatrists serving as expert witnesses in court: what do they know about eyewitness memory?
Annika Melindera & Svein Magnussena
Psychology, Crime & Law
Volume 21, Issue 1, 2015, pp 53-61
Abstract
Expert witnesses have various tasks that frequently include issues of memory. We tested if expert witnesses outperform other practitioners on memory issues of high relevance to clinical practice. We surveyed psychiatrists and psychologists who reported serving as expert witnesses in court (n = 117) about their knowledge and beliefs about human memory. The results were compared to a sample of psychiatrists and psychologists who had never served as expert witnesses (n = 819). Contrary to our expectations, the professionals serving as expert witnesses did not outperform the practitioners who never served. A substantial minority of the respondents harbored scientifically unproven ideas of human memory on issues such as the memory of small children, repression of adult traumatic memories, and recovered traumatic childhood memories. We conclude that the expert witnesses are at risk of offering bad recommendations to the court in trials where reliability of eyewitness memory is at stake.
The entire article is here.
Psychology, Crime & Law
Volume 21, Issue 1, 2015, pp 53-61
Abstract
Expert witnesses have various tasks that frequently include issues of memory. We tested if expert witnesses outperform other practitioners on memory issues of high relevance to clinical practice. We surveyed psychiatrists and psychologists who reported serving as expert witnesses in court (n = 117) about their knowledge and beliefs about human memory. The results were compared to a sample of psychiatrists and psychologists who had never served as expert witnesses (n = 819). Contrary to our expectations, the professionals serving as expert witnesses did not outperform the practitioners who never served. A substantial minority of the respondents harbored scientifically unproven ideas of human memory on issues such as the memory of small children, repression of adult traumatic memories, and recovered traumatic childhood memories. We conclude that the expert witnesses are at risk of offering bad recommendations to the court in trials where reliability of eyewitness memory is at stake.
The entire article is here.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Prosecutor questions ethics of Jodi Arias witness
By Megan Cassidy
The Arizona Republic via USA Today
Originally published November 26, 2014
Prosecutor Juan Martinez on Tuesday continued his steady drum of implications and accusations against a defense expert for Jodi Arias in an attempt to discredit favorable testimony for the convicted killer.
Psychologist L.C. Miccio-Fonseca examined the sexual relationship between Arias and victim Travis Alexander, Arias' sometimes lover.
The entire article is here.
The Arizona Republic via USA Today
Originally published November 26, 2014
Prosecutor Juan Martinez on Tuesday continued his steady drum of implications and accusations against a defense expert for Jodi Arias in an attempt to discredit favorable testimony for the convicted killer.
Psychologist L.C. Miccio-Fonseca examined the sexual relationship between Arias and victim Travis Alexander, Arias' sometimes lover.
The entire article is here.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Psychologist in "Kids for Cash" Scandal Surrenders License
By Roger DuPuis
The Times Leader
Originally published November 12, 2014
The psychologist brother-in-law of disgraced former Luzerne County judge Michael T. Conahan has given up his license for “gross incompetence, negligence or misconduct” carrying out his past work evaluating juveniles in the county court system, state officials said Wednesday.
The Pennsylvania Board of Psychology said Frank James Vita, of Dorrance Township, “grossly deviated from ethical and professional standards” after reviewing 76 of the cases he had handled.
Vita once was linked to the county’s “Kids for Cash” judicial scandal in a civil suit that alleged he conspired with Conahan and fellow former judge Mark Ciavarella to perform evaluations that led to juveniles being incarcerated in facilities in which the judges had a financial interest.
The entire article is here.
The Times Leader
Originally published November 12, 2014
The psychologist brother-in-law of disgraced former Luzerne County judge Michael T. Conahan has given up his license for “gross incompetence, negligence or misconduct” carrying out his past work evaluating juveniles in the county court system, state officials said Wednesday.
The Pennsylvania Board of Psychology said Frank James Vita, of Dorrance Township, “grossly deviated from ethical and professional standards” after reviewing 76 of the cases he had handled.
Vita once was linked to the county’s “Kids for Cash” judicial scandal in a civil suit that alleged he conspired with Conahan and fellow former judge Mark Ciavarella to perform evaluations that led to juveniles being incarcerated in facilities in which the judges had a financial interest.
The entire article is here.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Use and Misuse of Mental Health Professionals in Custody Cases
By Stephen Gassman and David A. Martindale
New York Law Journal
Originally published August 29, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
As is evident from the decision, the trial court found the mother misused numerous mental health professionals in pursuit of her goal of cutting the father out of the child's life. While accepting the evaluator's findings and most of his conclusions concerning the mother's ongoing alienation, the court did not adopt the evaluator's specific recommendation on the ultimate issue of what custodial arrangement would serve the child's best interests.
The court carefully delineated its reasons for so doing, articulating those facts of which the evaluator had been unaware. Particularly noteworthy is the court's statement that one of the "salient facts revealed during the course of the Hearing" and, therefore, unknown to the evaluator, was that the mother had "received extensive—over 50 hours—of preparation for her forensic interview…from…Dr. Jonathan Gould," a well-known forensic consultant from North Carolina. Justice Colangelo stated that this intensive preparation was "to the detriment of [the mother's] position…." in terms of assessing credibility.
The entire article is here.
New York Law Journal
Originally published August 29, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
As is evident from the decision, the trial court found the mother misused numerous mental health professionals in pursuit of her goal of cutting the father out of the child's life. While accepting the evaluator's findings and most of his conclusions concerning the mother's ongoing alienation, the court did not adopt the evaluator's specific recommendation on the ultimate issue of what custodial arrangement would serve the child's best interests.
The court carefully delineated its reasons for so doing, articulating those facts of which the evaluator had been unaware. Particularly noteworthy is the court's statement that one of the "salient facts revealed during the course of the Hearing" and, therefore, unknown to the evaluator, was that the mother had "received extensive—over 50 hours—of preparation for her forensic interview…from…Dr. Jonathan Gould," a well-known forensic consultant from North Carolina. Justice Colangelo stated that this intensive preparation was "to the detriment of [the mother's] position…." in terms of assessing credibility.
The entire article is here.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Who Is the Client and Who Controls Release of Records in a Forensic Evaluation?
By Bruce Borkosky
Psychological Injury and Law
August 2014
DOI: 10.1007/s12207-014-9199-6
Abstract
Forensic psychologists often refuse to release evaluation records, especially to the evaluee. One justification for this practice is based on the ethical positions that the referral source “is the client” and “controls release of records” (also found in the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology). To determine whether these ethical positions are shared by the field of forensic mental health, official documents from forensic mental health organizations were used as a proxy for these views. Thirty-four supporting arguments for either position were identified from the literature; it was postulated that official documents would support both positions and utilize supporting arguments. Fifty-four official documents were discovered, and qualitative analysis was used to construct a 17-category model of official views. Neither position was supported by a majority of documents, and few of the supporting arguments were utilized by supportive documents. The positions are unsupported because official documents espouse a wide diversity of views, there are a number of logical flaws in supporting arguments, and even official APA documents hold conflicting views. Ethical arguments are advanced for contrary positions, and the referral-source-control of records release is contrary to law. A more ethical view is that the psychologist may have multiple, possibly conflicting responsibilities to multiple entities; the psychologist’s roles and responsibilities should be clarified with each entity using an informed consent process. Psychologists should release records at the behest of the evaluee, lest they be subject to licensing discipline, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) complaints, and/or civil sanctions. Recommendations are offered for psychologists, future ethics codes and professional practice guidelines, and test security practices.
The entire article is here.
Psychological Injury and Law
August 2014
DOI: 10.1007/s12207-014-9199-6
Abstract
Forensic psychologists often refuse to release evaluation records, especially to the evaluee. One justification for this practice is based on the ethical positions that the referral source “is the client” and “controls release of records” (also found in the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology). To determine whether these ethical positions are shared by the field of forensic mental health, official documents from forensic mental health organizations were used as a proxy for these views. Thirty-four supporting arguments for either position were identified from the literature; it was postulated that official documents would support both positions and utilize supporting arguments. Fifty-four official documents were discovered, and qualitative analysis was used to construct a 17-category model of official views. Neither position was supported by a majority of documents, and few of the supporting arguments were utilized by supportive documents. The positions are unsupported because official documents espouse a wide diversity of views, there are a number of logical flaws in supporting arguments, and even official APA documents hold conflicting views. Ethical arguments are advanced for contrary positions, and the referral-source-control of records release is contrary to law. A more ethical view is that the psychologist may have multiple, possibly conflicting responsibilities to multiple entities; the psychologist’s roles and responsibilities should be clarified with each entity using an informed consent process. Psychologists should release records at the behest of the evaluee, lest they be subject to licensing discipline, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) complaints, and/or civil sanctions. Recommendations are offered for psychologists, future ethics codes and professional practice guidelines, and test security practices.
The entire article is here.
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Parole board psychologist admits he made up story
Frank Colistro had told KOIN 6 News he was shot during two different hostage negotiation operations
By Dan Tilkin
KOIN 6
Published: July 14, 2014
Frank Colistro, an influential Portland psychologist, told KOIN 6 News he was shot twice in the line of duty.
He now admits that was a lie.
Colistro is one of only five psychologists the Oregon Parole Board uses to evaluate inmates to help determine if they’re ready to be released from prison. He’s weighed in on countless cases, including very high-profile murders and rapes.
The entire story is here.
By Dan Tilkin
KOIN 6
Published: July 14, 2014
Frank Colistro, an influential Portland psychologist, told KOIN 6 News he was shot twice in the line of duty.
He now admits that was a lie.
Colistro is one of only five psychologists the Oregon Parole Board uses to evaluate inmates to help determine if they’re ready to be released from prison. He’s weighed in on countless cases, including very high-profile murders and rapes.
The entire story is here.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Are Psychologists Violating their Ethics Code by Conducting Death Penalty Evaluations for Defendants with Mental Disabilities?
By Celia Fisher
The Center for Ethics Education
Originally posted on May 17, 2014
Imagine you are a forensic psychologist asked during the sentencing phase of a capital punishment case to assess the mental status of a homeless, African American defendant convicted of murder. Your evaluation report states that the defendant has an IQ and adaptive living score bordering on a diagnosis of intellectual disability, but the absence of educational and health records from childhood prevents you from definitively stating he fits the Supreme Court’s definition of “mental retardation” which would preclude the jury from recommending the death penalty. Subsequently the defendant is sentenced for execution.
The entire article is here.
The Center for Ethics Education
Originally posted on May 17, 2014
Imagine you are a forensic psychologist asked during the sentencing phase of a capital punishment case to assess the mental status of a homeless, African American defendant convicted of murder. Your evaluation report states that the defendant has an IQ and adaptive living score bordering on a diagnosis of intellectual disability, but the absence of educational and health records from childhood prevents you from definitively stating he fits the Supreme Court’s definition of “mental retardation” which would preclude the jury from recommending the death penalty. Subsequently the defendant is sentenced for execution.
The entire article is here.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Sanity of Psychologist’s Killer Is Again at Issue
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
The New York Times
Published: January 2, 2014
The mental health of a man accused of killing a psychologist in her Upper East Side office was once again in question on Thursday, just as a judge in Manhattan was about to set a date for a new trial because the first one ended in a hung jury.
Lawyers for the man, David Tarloff, 45, said during a hearing on Thursday that a court-appointed psychiatrist at Bellevue Hospital Center had found him unfit to stand trial during an examination in November.
The entire story is here.
The New York Times
Published: January 2, 2014
The mental health of a man accused of killing a psychologist in her Upper East Side office was once again in question on Thursday, just as a judge in Manhattan was about to set a date for a new trial because the first one ended in a hung jury.
Lawyers for the man, David Tarloff, 45, said during a hearing on Thursday that a court-appointed psychiatrist at Bellevue Hospital Center had found him unfit to stand trial during an examination in November.
The entire story is here.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Texas pair released after serving 21 years for 'satanic abuse'
Dan and Fran Keller, sentenced in 1991 for child sexual assault during US 'Satanic panic' era, released after district attorney conceded trial jury was probably swayed by faulty testimony
By Tom Dart
The Guardian
Originally posted December 5, 2013
Here are two excerpts:
The only physical evidence against the Kellers was the testimony of Dr. Michael Mouw, who examined the girl in the emergency room of a local hospital after the therapy session and said he found tears in her hymen that potentially indicated that she was molested.
Mouw signed an affidavit last January in which he affirms that he now realises his inexperience led him to a conclusion that "is not scientifically or medically valid, and that I was mistaken."
In an appeal filed on behalf of Fran Keller earlier this year, her lawyer, Keith Hampton, also argued that the state presented misleading evidence about the cemetery, relied on a false witness confession and the testimony of a "quack" satanic abuse "expert", and that suggestive interview techniques had encouraged the children to make "fantastical false statements".
(cut)
DeYoung said that suggestive and insistent interviewing strategies prompted children to make up stories and start to believe what they were telling the adults, and that the received wisdom was that children would not lie about such serious crimes. Media and parental pressure obliged the police to give credence even to risible allegations.
The entire story is here.
There is an interesting Geraldo Rivera special television episode, Exposing Satan's Underground from 1988, associated with this story found here on YouTube. The entire episode is worth watching, if you are interested in the hysteria and panic of that time. At the 1 hour and 15 minute mark, psychologists and psychiatrists report threats to their lives when treating survivors of ritualistic abuse.
By Tom Dart
The Guardian
Originally posted December 5, 2013
Here are two excerpts:
The only physical evidence against the Kellers was the testimony of Dr. Michael Mouw, who examined the girl in the emergency room of a local hospital after the therapy session and said he found tears in her hymen that potentially indicated that she was molested.
Mouw signed an affidavit last January in which he affirms that he now realises his inexperience led him to a conclusion that "is not scientifically or medically valid, and that I was mistaken."
In an appeal filed on behalf of Fran Keller earlier this year, her lawyer, Keith Hampton, also argued that the state presented misleading evidence about the cemetery, relied on a false witness confession and the testimony of a "quack" satanic abuse "expert", and that suggestive interview techniques had encouraged the children to make "fantastical false statements".
(cut)
DeYoung said that suggestive and insistent interviewing strategies prompted children to make up stories and start to believe what they were telling the adults, and that the received wisdom was that children would not lie about such serious crimes. Media and parental pressure obliged the police to give credence even to risible allegations.
The entire story is here.
There is an interesting Geraldo Rivera special television episode, Exposing Satan's Underground from 1988, associated with this story found here on YouTube. The entire episode is worth watching, if you are interested in the hysteria and panic of that time. At the 1 hour and 15 minute mark, psychologists and psychiatrists report threats to their lives when treating survivors of ritualistic abuse.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Gruesome case videos became too much for top psychiatrist
Chris Cobb, Postmedia News | Originally published 11/11/13
Dr. John Bradford’s mental breakdown hit without warning less than half an hour after he watched Canadian Air Force colonel Russell Williams sexually assaulting two young women whom he would later kill.
During his long and distinguished career as a doctor and teacher, the internationally renowned forensic psychiatrist had become skilled at emotionally detaching himself from all manner of horrendous images.
He was relatively comfortable sitting across a table from the likes of notorious sex killers Paul Bernardo, Robert (Willie) Pickton and Williams.
And like all professionals in his line of work, Dr. Bradford was trained to focus on the killer, not the crime. His job is to get inside a killer’s mind, not to pass judgment on the severity or brutality of the killer’s actions.
The entire article is here.
Thanks to Gary Schoener for this article.
Dr. John Bradford’s mental breakdown hit without warning less than half an hour after he watched Canadian Air Force colonel Russell Williams sexually assaulting two young women whom he would later kill.
During his long and distinguished career as a doctor and teacher, the internationally renowned forensic psychiatrist had become skilled at emotionally detaching himself from all manner of horrendous images.
He was relatively comfortable sitting across a table from the likes of notorious sex killers Paul Bernardo, Robert (Willie) Pickton and Williams.
And like all professionals in his line of work, Dr. Bradford was trained to focus on the killer, not the crime. His job is to get inside a killer’s mind, not to pass judgment on the severity or brutality of the killer’s actions.
The entire article is here.
Thanks to Gary Schoener for this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)