Based on this information, the forensic psychologist can help determine who
committed the crime. Child custody disputes involve clinicians looking at
parental fitness and deciding whether a child should be removed from a home
because of an unfit parent. Because it is difficult to take children away from
biological parents, clinicians must show that the parent has done one or many of
the following things: inflicted or allowed infliction on the child, been morally
delinquent, abandoned the child, is mentally ill, or fails to provide the
necessary care for the child other than poverty. All evidence shown must be
convincing in order for the judge to rule against the parent. Clinicians use
interviews, standardized tests, observations of interactions between parent and
child, and documents in order to make qualified decisions about custody. This
type of trial can be very difficult because of its emotional implications and
the strong desire for the parent to retain the child. Clinicians must prepare
themselves for their ethics, clinical methods, competence, and personal
character to be attacked when a decision is made (Nietzel, et al., 1998).
Prospects for the Future While forensic psychology covers many issues in the
legal system and appears to help judges and juries make informed decisions, it
nevertheless receives much criticism because reliability, validity, propriety,
and usefulness of the expert testimony are hard to judge (Nietzel et al., 1998).
Faust and Ziskin (1988) are skeptics when it comes to forensic psychology and
its relevance in law.
They claim that “the instability of theory and method hinders the
accumulation of scientific knowledge.” They offer several arguments against the
use of expert testimonies in the courtroom. First, they state that it is
difficult to achieve interclinician agreement on descriptions of current status.
Studies they reviewed had shown that clinicians’ error rate exceeded their
accuracy rate. Secondly, clinicians generally are not experienced in the
forensic role because they are more familiar with the role of helping patients.
Faust and Ziskin feel that the clinician’s tendency to empathize with people
will cloud the jury’s decision. Thirdly, studies have shown that clinicians
cannot distinguish between feigned and normal test results. Lastly, they believe
that clinicians tend to overvalue supportive evidence and undervalue
counterevidence, which leads to the presumption of abnormality when it might not
be there. Overall, Faust and Ziskin believe that the expert’s testimony will
reflect personal biases and can mislead juries. While Faust and Ziskin have
strong arguments against the use of expert testimonies, they neglect to discuss
the positive aspects of them. I believe that any information offered during
trials is beneficial to juries in their decision-making process. One cannot
forget that during a trial, other testimonies and evidence are offered to the
jury. Their decision is not solely based on the clinician’s beliefs, rather, the
expert testimony merely offers another perspective. Nietzel clearly believes
that forensic psychologists play an important role in the judicial system. As
the field of psychology is becoming more scientific, advances are being made to
increase reliability and validity of methods involved in forensics. For example,
the definition of insanity has changed in order to compensate for changing
times. Assessment tests continue to be developed to improve accuracy. Nietzel
admits that even though reforms are being made, however, they may or may not
solve all of the concerns dealing with forensic psychology. Along with every
other aspect of psychology, only further studies and research will tell what the
outcome will be.
Bibliography
Crace, J. (1995). Inside the criminal mind. New Statesman & Society, 8, 29-30.
Faust, D., & Ziskin, J. (1988). The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry.
Science, 241, 31-35. Nietzel, M., Bernstein, D., & Milich, R. (1998).
Introduction to clinical psychology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Words: 1535
