Forensic psychology.txt

Mentally disordered

Bad

Attempting to meet their objectives in opposing circumstances

Model in which the patient fakes symptoms

Models presuppose malingering is likely to occur with (1) a person with antisocial personality disorder (APD), (2) evaluations conducted for forensic purposes, (3) persons uncooperative with evaluation and treatment, and (4) persons whose claims are discrepant with objective findings

-- ADP * forensic context * uncooperative * wrong symptoms --

Model in which would-be malingerers engage on cost-benefit analysis with an assessment they perceive as indifferent to their needs

Model that attempted to test the efficacy of DSM-IV indicators of malingering on a forensic sample

Demonstrating characteristics including (1) glibness and superficial charm, (2) pathological lying, (3) conning and manipulativeness, basically just takes advantage of others

Conscious misrepresentation of physical and/or psychological symptoms for an external goal

The conscious denial or gross minimization of physical and/or psychological symptoms

A response style in which the individual does not become psychologically engaged in the assessment process

Irrelevant responding in which a random pattern can be identified

A patient's sincere attempt to be accurate in his/her responses

Using any combination of responding styles

Deliberately misrepresenting psychological symptoms

response of no use to the case

To distort or misrepresent a self-reporting

What a person reveals about him/herself

The denial of negative characteristics and the attribution of positive qualities

Social behaviors by attempting to create a positive image and avoid embarrassment and other negative emotions

In order to learn about dishonest people who do not comply with instructions to answer tests honestly, we study honest people who are complying with the instruction to answer tests dishonestly.

The patient answers fairly accurately, but leaves out some information

unbelievable response of symptoms due to exaggeration, denial, and guardedness

There is clear evidence that the patient is attempting to malinger, primarily through exaggeration.

The patient, either through exaggeration or fabrication, attempts to present him/herself as considerably more disturbed than is the case.

The patient is extreme in his or her fabrication of symptoms to the point that the presentation is fantastic or preposterous

There is clear evidence that the patient's severity of symptoms are downsized but present

The patient minimizes or denies substantial psychological impairment.

The patient denies any problem

the level of experimental support and theoretical basis for justifying a diagnostic conclusion

design in which participants are offered small incentives for faking particular symptoms

patients responding accurately

design where persons with different settings are assumed to have contrasting rates or dissimulation

defense that a person may be excused if his thinking was severely disordered

defense that a person may be excused if his ability to control his behavior was severely impaired

criminal intent

conflicting research findings

conclusions that are consistent with accepted theory and supported by one or two studies of limited genalizability

research studies consistently show statistical significance in the expected direction, but have little or no practical value in classifying individuals

research studies consistently establish statistical significance in which cutting scores, measures of central tendency, or a similar statistic accurately differentiate between at least 75% of the criterion groups

accurate classification of 90% or more of individual persons based on extensive, cross-validated research. Finding are congruent with accepted theory.

The set of abilities necessary for a criminal defendant to understand the proceedings in which he or she is participating and to make rational decisions about the alternative courses of action that are available.

In a trial, a position by the defendant that places the burden on the defendant to prove his/her claim.

Not responsible if:lacks capacity to determine “wrongfulness” (cognitive)OR unable to conform conduct to requirements of the law (volitional)

(ALI rule)

understanding of the the nature and purpose of the criminal proceeding

The ability of a defendant to understand the possible consequences of pleading guilty to criminal charges instead of going to trial, and to make a rational choice between these alternatives.

Sufficient ability to understand the legal proceedings in which one is involved and to consult with one's attorney.

A variation of the insanity defense that is applicable if the defendant (in the words of the law) lacks the ability to understand the consequences of their act

mental state at the time of the crime

A rule applied in the history of the insanity defense, in which the defendant must show that he did not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know the difference between right and wrong.

A plea of no contest.

To agree about a fact in a legal proceeding without further argument or examination.

Protects the rights of the accused to jury trial, confront opposition, and right to counsel

Right to due process of law and equal protection

• (1)Delusions
• (2)Disorganized thoughts/speech
• (3)Hallucinations
• (4)Inappropriate Affect/Emotion

• (1)Poverty of Speech
• (2)Flat Affect
• (3)Apathy/Amotivational
• (4)Ambivalence

gradual deterioration

Pronounced Positive Symptoms

Positive symptoms decrease, negative symptoms remain

“…sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and…has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him”

Those psychological factors that directly bear on the legal issue at hand

Initial screening test

Interview that covers the patient's legal competency

Screening test that combined legal competence with psychopathological symptoms

highly reliable test that tapped into the patients general legal knowledge, courtroom layout and specific legal knowledge

Assesses understanding, reasoning, and appreciation of relevant legal issues

a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that determined a state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.

- release of patients IST in decent time frame -

led to the consideration of six factors when deciding competency with amnesia

• (1)ability to consult counsel
• (2)ability to testify
• (3)can others reconstruct crime
• (4)prosecutions assistance in reconstruction
• (5)strength of prosecutions case
• (6)anything else that indicates the fairness of the trial

a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant was competent to stand trial, they were automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.

refused the right to counsel, lost

Inability to exercise rational control over one’s behavior

got off