Abstract

Evaluator judgments of defendants’ mental state at the time of the offense (MSO) can influence the trier of fact and have implications for fairness and justice; however, current practices, and their alignment with best practice guidelines, are effectively unknown. The limited existing literature indicates there are some substantive differences between practice recommendations for MSO evaluations and how they are conducted in practice. The current mixed methods study expanded those findings by revealing several discrepancies among how evaluators endorsed certain collateral data sources, clinical interview topics, and psychological and forensic assessment tools in an ideal evaluation scenario and how those ratings compared to their actual practices, as well as identified the justifications provided for any discrepancies. Overall, results suggest actual practices are generally aligned with reported ideal practices; however, some discrepancies exist. We discuss these discrepancies in relation to existing ethical and specialty guidelines and propose practice recommendations. In order to protect against potentially biasing information, evaluators are encouraged to institute safeguards when communicating with a defendant’s attorney, implement a systematic review process, and scrutinize their current clinical interviews. Additionally, clinicians should be aware of all measures relevant to the psycholegal construct and may consider requesting further data sources.

摘要

评估员对犯罪时被告精神状态的判断（MSO）会影响事实审判者，并对公平正义产生影响；然而，目前的做法及其与最佳做法指南的一致性实际上是未知的。有限的现有文献表明 MSO 评估的实践建议与其在实践中的实施方式之间存在一些实质性差异。当前的混合方法研究通过揭示在理想评估场景中评估者如何认可某些附带数据源、临床访谈主题以及心理和法医评估工具之间的一些差异，以及这些评级如何与他们的实际做法进行比较，以及识别为任何差异提供的理由。全面的，结果表明实际做法通常与报告的理想做法一致；然而，存在一些差异。我们讨论与现有伦理和专业指南相关的这些差异，并提出实践建议。为了防止潜在的偏见信息，我们鼓励评估人员在与被告的律师沟通时采取保护措施，实施系统的审查过程，并仔细审查他们当前的临床访谈。此外，临床医生应了解与心理法律结构相关的所有措施，并可能考虑要求进一步的数据来源。我们讨论与现有伦理和专业指南相关的这些差异，并提出实践建议。为了防止潜在的偏见信息，我们鼓励评估人员在与被告的律师沟通时采取保护措施，实施系统的审查过程，并仔细审查他们当前的临床访谈。此外，临床医生应了解与心理法律结构相关的所有措施，并可能考虑要求进一步的数据来源。我们讨论与现有伦理和专业指南相关的这些差异，并提出实践建议。为了防止潜在的偏见信息，我们鼓励评估人员在与被告的律师沟通时采取保护措施，实施系统的审查过程，并仔细审查他们当前的临床访谈。此外，临床医生应了解与心理法律结构相关的所有措施，并可能考虑要求进一步的数据来源。