Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Forensic psychology and forensic science: A proposed agenda for the next decade.
The field of forensic psychology has matured as a discipline, having made considerable progress toward the goal of a close integration of foundational science with practice. Substantial challenges remain, however. This article first reviews the progress of the discipline over the past 3 decades by considering the recommendations made by previous commentators (Grisso, 1987; Otto & Heilbrun, 2002; Poythress, 1979) and the extent to which identified priorities have been met. Next, it analyzes a recent multidisciplinary report addressing the current state of forensic science in the United States (National Research Council, 2009), using the recommendations from this report as another source of guidance for tracking the progress in forensic psychology. Finally, it identifies important priorities for the field of forensic psychology for the next decade in light of this discussion. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
Psychopathy evidence in legal proceedings involving adolescent offenders.
Despite debates surrounding juvenile psychopathy, we do not know how frequently psychopathy evidence is presented in adolescent court cases or how this information is used. To address this gap, we reviewed 111 American and Canadian adolescent offender cases, which included 143 separate evaluations involving psychopathy. Results suggest that psychopathy evidence has been introduced in a sizable number of cases and is becoming increasingly common. While judges generally did not refer to psychopathy evidence in making ultimate legal decisions, psychopathy evidence appeared influential in some cases. In addition, consistent with concerns voiced by scholars, evidence of psychopathy was frequently used to infer that a youth would be difficult or impossible to treat. Conversely, the absence of psychopathy was occasionally interpreted as a sign of amenability and used to support more lenient sanctions. Whereas some cases appeared to attend to key issues that have been discussed in the research literature, such as the need for caution in applying psychopathy labels to youth and the importance of developmentally appropriate assessment strategies, other cases did not. The implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
Prison rape and psychological sequelae: A call for research.
Prison rape is a pervasive and serious problem affecting many male inmates in U.S. prisons. We review the literature on prison rape prevalence, victimization risk factors, and the psychological and nonpsychological sequelae of prison rape. We address several areas of inquiry needed to guide research and facilitate solutions to the problem of prison rape, especially given the context and intent of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) passed in 2003 by the U.S. Congress. Mental health correlates remain to be studied; for example, the complex postrape symptoms of prison rape survivors do not appear to be captured by current diagnostic nomenclature. To date, psychology has been largely silent on the issue of prison rape but may have much to offer in terms of describing and treating the psychological impact of victimization, documenting the personal and situational risk and protective factors associated with prison rape, and in designing programs and policy to reduce prison rape. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
“Everyone knows their Miranda rights”: Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence.
In its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States buttressed the Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination by requiring as a procedural safeguard that various aspects of this privilege be clearly communicated to custodial suspects. Members of the public often believe that their continually media-fueled familiarity with Miranda warnings results in an adequate understanding of Miranda rights—a frequently erroneous assumption that may diminish counsel's motivation to investigate Miranda waivers and may influence court rulings on the validity of such waivers. The current investigation examined Miranda rights misconceptions held by two groups of pretrial defendants: those arrested more recently (i.e., less than 2 weeks ago) and those arrested less recently (i.e., 4 weeks ago or more). The misconceptions of these groups were then contrasted with those of undergraduate students representing a more educated and comparatively unstressed segment of American society. Results revealed a host of widely-held misconceptions, including a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of the “right to remain silent” as a legal protection. Moreover, many misconceptions appeared unrelated to intelligence, education, or prior contacts with the criminal justice system. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to the validity of Miranda waivers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law - Vol 16, Iss 3