What Is Forensic Psychology

How Forensic Psychology Began and Flourished

There are many subsets of psychology. No doubt one of the most fascinating is forensic psychology. Forensic psychology is basically the intersection of psychology and the legal system.

It’s quite a broad field. Psychologists work in a variety of settings, including police departments, prisons, courts and juvenile detention centers. And they do everything from assessing whether an incarcerated individual is ready for parole to advising attorneys on jury selection to serving as experts on the stand to counseling cops and their spouses to creating treatment programs for offenders. Most are trained as clinical or counseling psychologists.

So how did this interesting specialty emerge and expand? Here’s a brief look at the history of forensic psychology.

The first research in forensic psychology explored the psychology of testimony. James McKeen Cattell conducted one of these early studies in 1893 at Columbia University.

In his informal study, he asked 56 college students a series of questions. Among the four questions were: Do chestnut or oak trees lose their leaves earlier in autumn? What was the weather like one week ago today? He also asked students to rate their confidence.

Findings revealed that confidence didn’t equal correctness. Some students were confident regardless of whether their answers were correct, while others were always insecure, even when they provided the right answer.

The level of accuracy also was surprising. For instance, for the weather question, students gave a wide range of responses, which were equally distributed by the types of weather possible that month.

Cattell’s research ignited the interests of other psychologists. For example, Joseph Jastrow at the University of Wisconsin replicated Cattell’s study and found similar results.

In 1901, William Stern collaborated with a criminologist on an interesting experiment that further showed the level of inaccuracy in eyewitness accounts. The researchers staged a phony argument in a law class, which culminated in one of the students drawing a revolver. At that point, the professor intervened and stopped the fight.

Then students were asked to provide written and oral reports of what happened. Findings revealed that each student made anywhere from four to 12 errors. The inaccuracies peaked with the second half of the squabble, when tension was highest. So they cautiously concluded that emotions reduced the accuracy of recall.

Sell v. United States (2003) | Clinical Forensic Psychology ...

Charles Thomas Sell had been a practicing dentist, but he had a history of psychiatric hospitalizations.  In September 1982, he told doctors he believed the gold he used for fillings had been contaminated by Communists.  He was psychiatrically hospitalized, treated with antipsychotic medication, and released. In June 1984, he called the police and reported a leopard boarded a bus outside his office and asked the police to kill him.  He was again hospitalized.  He also complained that government officials were trying to kill him and that God told him a soul would be saved for every FBI agent he killed.  In May of 1997, Sell was charged with submitting fictitious insurance claims for payment.  He was later indicted by a grand jury on 56 counts of mail fraud, 6 counts of Medicaid fraud, and 1 count of money laundering. In April 1998, Sell was indicted for the attempted murder of an FBI agent who had arrested him and a former employee who planned to testify against him in the fraud case. In 1999, Sell requested a competency evaluation, was sent to the U.S. Medical Center, and he was found incompetent.  He was ordered to be treated at the U.S. Medical Center for up to four months.  After two months, staff recommended he be medicated with antipsychotics, but Sell refused medication. The reviewing psychiatrist recommended involuntary medication, and the administration reviewed and upheld the hearing officer’s decision. Sell contested and a Magistrate judge held a hearing.  In August 2000, the Magistrate held that Sell was a danger to himself and others and issued an order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medications.  The District Court issued an opinion in April 2001, and determined the Magistrate erred in finding Sell dangerous, but affirmed the involuntary medication order.  In March 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court decision.  The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In a 6 to 3 decision, the Court vacated the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court held that the appellate court erred in affirming the district court’s decision, because both courts recognized that Sell was erroneously found dangerous by the Magistrate judge. In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause permits the Government to involuntary administer antipsychotic medications to defendants facing serious criminal charges in order to render them competent to stand trial.  The Court stated that this would not have to be considered if the defendant met criteria based on dangerousness; however, if the defendant did not meet other criteria, the following requirements must be satisfied in order to involuntarily medicate:  important government interests are at stake, medication is substantially likely to restore competence and not impair competence, medication is necessary, and medication is medically appropriate.