Forensic shills

[sockit]

---

Members don't see this ad.

There's a guy, who is apparently legally entitled to call himself a psychologist, who claims someone assessed by several psychologists as having either APD or significant psychopathic traits -- a torturer (it is really not in doubt that he abused the victim in the worst ways imaginable, for years; the mens rea bit I think is what's at issue for sentencing) -- is treatable. With anger management training.

Rough overview of the story (victim's statement)

Video of suspect's interrogation by police (scroll down a bit)*

Shill's opinions ( one report; another ) include the notion that the offender is not impulsive. (That last link is just one of several reports of public outbursts that took place *in the courtroom*.)

Additional contextual reading, I'm leaving to the interested reader to google.

So, on a personal level, I'm horrified; from the pov of a psych student, I think there are orbitofrontal things going on; leaving those to one side, my questions are:

1) How far from consensus opinion/clinical judgement can forensic psychologists go?
2) What if any legal mechanisms (state/province; professional body) exist to check the validity of their conclusions? Obviously these will be regional, but, just sort of generally..
3) If a forensic psychologist committed to an outlier opinion that supported a legal judgement freeing someone who in everyone else in the world's opinion (but also, that of most other psychologists) should be classed as a dangerous offender, would the victim (or future victims, or the public for that matter) have any recourse against that psychologist? Would such a psychologist be open to professional censure of any kind? Who might initiate an action? The past (or future) victim would seem to be best positioned to do something like that (as in I can see them suing the shill) but I can't imagine them having the will or resources, after a trial etc.

Asking here, because I am determined to avoid any courses specifically related to forensics (other than bits of abnormal that touch on it incidentally).

*The contempt evident (to my ear) in the offender's description of his victim, at 2:30... there reasons for it that bear study, but I don't know how people work in this area.

 

[somedaypsych]

{/QUOTE} Asking here, because I am determined to avoid any courses specifically related to forensics (other than bits of abnormal that touch on it incidentally).[/QUOTE]

Personally, I think you are doing yourself a disservice by avoiding forensics. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone should work in the field, but I think being exposed to as much as possible (at the very least in class) makes us well-rounded clinicians. I hesitate to draw any conclusions based on news reports. With that being said, I would like to challenge your notion that violent offenders are untreatable with certain interventions. Also, remember that multiple experts are called in...This one guy's opinion is not the only one heard; therefore, the validity of his conclusions should be challenged as a result of the legal process. I am also not sure that this witness is deviating from "consensus," as I believe the article only mentions 2 other opinions. Again, it is difficult to come to any conclusions when you were not involved in the assessment of the defendant, etc. As for the legal ramifications, I am not qualified to weigh in...I suppose if he was released and went on to commit a violent crime, someone could sue; however, there is no way this guy would just be released into the community...that's not how it works (in the US at least...can't speak to Canada).

 

[sockit]

I don't dispute that rehabilitation is possible for violent offenders in principle. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but there is little evidence to suggest that antisocial personality disorder (one suggested dx for this person) can be successfully treated with anger management training, however intensely or carefully delivered.

As far as I am aware, the best available evidence does not support that recommendation, given that diagnosis (let's say, hypothetically, it's valid in this instance or one like it). Given that diagnosis (but also considering the documented behaviour), the treatment suggested is so inappropriate that I wonder how he could publicly espouse it without losing his license.

Obviously, no one is in a position to judge this or any suspect based on news reports (though I have just read a bunch, to my shame, including ones addressing other trials in which he is accused of separate crimes, involving similar if less prolonged/severe abuses against other people), or to make an assessment second-hand from direct documentary sources. (But. There were at least three reported accounts -- yes, by the media, with a courtroom full of people witnessing them -- of the accused engaging in outbursts in court. It beggars belief that this psychologist did not capture the potential for impulse control issues via a) a valid instrument or b) clinical judgement. Hang on -- right-- he is NOT impulsive, according to this psychologist, but should be treated with anger management. Confusing, no?)

Outside of this instance: even if, let's say, outlier conclusions are successfully challenged in the context of an individual legal case, what would it take for a forensic psychologist (not saying this one, necessarily) to be held accountable for treatment recommendations that deviate from the evidence base (which is what I mean by consensus)?

I am obviously having a personal response to this particular event that warrants further reflection. Ok, but really: can a forensic psychologist just say anything and get away with it? Is it really possible to just sell anything without professional repercussions?

As far as what I'm taking.. currently, I'm an undergraduate. If I were to be accepted anywhere and begin professional training, I would take all courses required for graduation and licensure, and invest as much time as I could in areas in which I have an active interest. (It would seem I am interested in this case, but in general, not so much, with the forensics.)

edit: right, sorry. he disputes the severity of the psychopathy.

 

[WisNeuro]

That's too bad, forensics is probably the highest paying portion of what we can do as psychologists. And yes, there are terrible "psychologists" out there who will pretty much say anything that a defense attorney wants them too. For example, you should see some of the testimony from the defense expert in the Jodi Arias trial. Simply laughable. Multiple ethics violations and he made it quite clear that he has no idea what PTSD actually is and how it presents.

That being said, there is plenty of room for ethical, competent psychologists in the forensics field to offset these shameless wastes of space.

 

[PsyDr]

1) so long as their methodology is supported by science, relies ona method with a known error rate, etc. one can deviate as much as one can support.

2) daubert hearings, cross examination, rebuttal expert witnesses

3) absolutely not. Expert immunity applies. See this for your other question.

Youre also confusing many lay understanding with technical understanding. Risk assessment isn't looking at someone and saying he/she is dangerous. It is a nuanced stats thing.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

{/QUOTE} Asking here, because I am determined to avoid any courses specifically related to forensics (other than bits of abnormal that touch on it incidentally).

Personally, I think you are doing yourself a disservice by avoiding forensics. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone should work in the field, but I think being exposed to as much as possible (at the very least in class) makes us well-rounded clinicians. I hesitate to draw any conclusions based on news reports. With that being said, I would like to challenge your notion that violent offenders are untreatable with certain interventions. Also, remember that multiple experts are called in...This one guy's opinion is not the only one heard; therefore, the validity of his conclusions should be challenged as a result of the legal process. I am also not sure that this witness is deviating from "consensus," as I believe the article only mentions 2 other opinions. Again, it is difficult to come to any conclusions when you were not involved in the assessment of the defendant, etc. As for the legal ramifications, I am not qualified to weigh in...I suppose if he was released and went on to commit a violent crime, someone could sue; however, there is no way this guy would just be released into the community...that's not how it works (in the US at least...can't speak to Canada).[/QUOTE]

This. Soooo this.👍

 

[sockit]

1) so long as their methodology is supported by science, relies ona method with a known error rate, etc. one can deviate as much as one can support.

2) daubert hearings, cross examination, rebuttal expert witnesses

3) absolutely not. Expert immunity applies. See this for your other question.

Youre also confusing many lay understanding with technical understanding. Risk assessment isn't looking at someone and saying he/she is dangerous. It is a nuanced stats thing.

Thank you for answering the questions I buried in that screed 🙂 Sounds like it's really only those who are both unethical & incompetent that eventually get weeded out, by market forces, then.

 

[sockit]

That's too bad, forensics is probably the highest paying portion of what we can do as psychologists. And yes, there are terrible "psychologists" out there who will pretty much say anything that a defense attorney wants them too. For example, you should see some of the testimony from the defense expert in the Jodi Arias trial. Simply laughable. Multiple ethics violations and he made it quite clear that he has no idea what PTSD actually is and how it presents.

That being said, there is plenty of room for ethical, competent psychologists in the forensics field to offset these shameless wastes of space.

For sure, I don't doubt there are people who do careful, conscientious work.. by no means did I mean to suggest that. The rest -- shocking..