Interpersonal Cooperation Prong: A Case Study

The brain can be affected by damage and cause behavior to be expressed differently in every person. Events such as a car crash or childhood abuse can affect brain development and function. Damage to certain areas of the brain can have a variety of effects. The hippocampus controls emotions and is associated with memory, and the frontal lobe is a brain cortex that controls motor functions, problem solving, memory, language, judgments, social and sexual behavior and impulse. When the frontal lobe or hippocampus is affected, a person’s emotion can be out of their control. In criminal cases, brain damage can affect the sentencing of a violent criminal, but to what extent should these abnormalities play a role in their conviction? Much research has been conducted in order to determine the effect that brain abnormalities should have on the conviction of violent criminals. A psychiatrist at New York University, Dr. Lewis, has conducted a study on death-row inmates, how their brains work and what affect the damage had on their conviction. By doing so Dr. Lewis paved the way for other researchers, such as Kent Kiehl and Jonathan H. Pincus to study the brains of violent criminals looking for a answer as to whether or not these criminals should be incarcerated. Over time research has been conducted focusing on mental illnesses and brain damage as the cause of violent acts instead of it being just premeditated murder. Many believe brain damage or mental illness should have no affect on

Forensic Psychologists play important roles in our legal system, from collecting knowledge and applying it to the law to evaluating the defendants (Greene, 2014). Every case has different factors that effect which Forensic Psychologist will be needed to achieve finding the truth in the court. Likewise with every case, each defendant has their own accountant of what had happened to bring them before the court. In the cases of Alisha Waters and Shawn Smith an Applied Scientist could be called to be an expert witness in both cases. In Adam Parker’s a Forensic Evaluator was called in to evaluate his mental state.

Neuropsychological testing is a series of tests and questionnaires for assessment of cognitive functions that cannot be fully administered following the injury since the test takes several days when the injured person requires cognitive rest. In the period of recovery, neurocognitive testing (along with symptom assessment, clinical evaluation, etc.) may help in the diagnosis and management of

What we do not understand from these case studies, however, is why the same brain deficits do not lead to the same actions from people affected. Phineas Gage and Antonio Damasio became unlikable people, but neither became criminals. Yet, our former Marine went on an uncharacteristic killing spree explained by his brain lesion. These case studies make scientist question if the ability to exercise self-control is also damaged when these areas of the brain are defects. While the criminal justice system was once black or white- guilty or innocent there are shades of gray because of our new ability to see the damaged areas of the brain and better understand how this factor can impact criminality. Of the 60-70% of defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity, the majority was diagnosed with a mental illness, but 10% were found NGRI because of their brain

Neuroscience evidence has impacted some cases in the history. In 1991, the structural neuroimaging evidence was presented in the criminal proceeding, Herbert Weinstein was being tried for second-degree murder, he was the primary suspect in his wife’s death. It was believed that during the heated argument, he strangled her and threw her body from the window of their apartment to make it look like a suicide (Rojas-Burke, 1993). His defense attorney claimed that Weinstein is not responsible for his actions due to a mental defect. Where a large cyst located in his membranous casing of his brain had increased the pressure on his frontal cortex, metabolic imbalances in the region that resulted to decreased his ability to tell right from wrong.

Assessment psychology has examined individuals who are criminal offenders who were evaluated to determine their personalities to which they have a long history with. Approximately well over a century ago, Münsterberg, 1908, Vaccaro & Hogan, 2004 who are all psychologists has managed a improved study on criminal offenders that will allow us all to have an ambiguous understanding of how the process of his research in reference to the criminal offenders testimony in court cases. In the 20th century the personality assessment was established, which was generally exercised to govern a component for personality in criminals (Symonds, 1934). During court cases in 1942 adults and juveniles were introduced to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) which was disclosed that same year. Psychologists Archer, Stredny, & Zoby, (2006); Archer, Buffington-Vollum, Stredny, and Handel (2006); Borum and Grisso (1995); and Lally (2003) was flabbergasted to find how accurate the MMPI–2 presented itself, which was ultimately the most universally piece of equipment acknowledged and used as evidence for criminals, that calculated their personalities in forensic assessments. The MMPI was authenticated well in the 70’s which everyone employed extensively as solid foundation in correctional settings as well as the use in forensic psychologists.

Otto, R. K. (2006). Competency to Stand Trial [Electronic Version]. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2(3), 82-113.

They stated that murderers that plead not guilty by the reason of insanity (NGRI) have brain dysfunction. So they obtained a group of individuals who had been charged with murder but pleaded NGRI, in which some of these individuals had mental illnesses including schizophrenia, some had personality disorders such as Multiple Personality Disorder and some had brain injuries. To compare, there was also a control group involved who had schizophrenia but had not committed a crime. This study examined brain activity in the individuals who had committed the offence when completing a task. The results that were found showed that there is a link between criminal behaviour and the activity and structure of the brain. Although this could only mean that the brain activity could be a contributing factor towards such behaviours, so it doesn’t mean that it’s the main cause for the violent

Neuroscience discovery definitely helped in the field of criminal justice as it provides an insight on cases in which the defendants are of potential neurological impairments. Mental illness falls on the plea of not guilty as the criminal justice system is solely based on free will, and yet mental illness might affect one’s free will (Grachek 1478). In addition, punishment towards insanity offenders might not effective in serving the rationales of deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation (Grachek 1479) Insanity defense is skeptically viewed by the public. Research findings show that public tend to believe that the insane pleaders are of malingering (Shniderman 11), and these myths or view might affect jury verdicts. Hence, evidence is very important in determining the cognitive ability and mental health status of the defendant. Neurological evidence, such as brain

Veridicality is the second important aspect of ecological validity and is defined as the degree to which aspects of an individual’s everyday functioning is predicted by assessment performance (Anderson et al., 2008). Specifically, veridicality refers to the results of tests and suggests they should be reflective and predictive of behaviors in daily life (Parsons, 2011). Unlike verisimilitude, veridicality is not just theoretical in nature, but it is also empirical and refers to how well test performance correlates with measures of real-world functioning (Anderson et al., 2008; Kenworthy et al., 2008). In theory, neuropsychologists are expected to provide strengths, weaknesses, and identify impairments, however, in practice they are additionally expected to describe how these aspects will impact the day to day functioning of the patient (Anderson et al., 2008). Moreover, the development of neuroimaging techniques has taken the role of identifying the location of lesions from neuropsychologists, leaving them to describe and define functional capacities of the patient in settings of daily life, placing increased value on ecological validity in general (Kenworthy et al., 2008). Tests high in veridicality have become a remedy for these matters through offering results which predict day to day behaviors (Anderson et al.,

For centuries, psychologists were not allowed to testify in courts to help give expert opinions or be witnesses concerning criminals with mental disorders who were unable to give reliable testimony. In mid-20th century, the American legal system turned to psychiatrists when they required mental health expertise (Packer, 2008). However, the creation of the psychology field was not established until a landmark case, Jenkins v. United States in 1962, established that psychologists are able to testify as independent witnesses with expertise on mental disorders (Varela & Conroy, 2012). Forensic psychology is the interdisciplinary of law and psychology. A forensic psychologist commonly specializes in applying psychological knowledge to legal matters,

The legal system has had a long history of tense association with psychology. The legal system to include judges and lawyers may have opposition to the use of psychology testing in legal matters. Some may say that expert witnesses in the field of psychology will always benefit the defendant through any standpoint. Psychologist experts on the other hand may believe that the legal system might be flawed. That the argumentative court room testimonies do not fully and truthfully explain human behavior. However, at the end of the day both psychologist and the legal system are both apprehensive with the challenges of standards and competence in the courtroom.

For example, a “relatively high proportion of criminals meet the criteria for psychopathy, a condition that is associated with frequent acts of deception and with alterations in both structural MRI and fMRI studies” (Farah et al., 2014). Furthermore, we also need to account for individual differences in the neural systems involved in lying (Farah et al., 2014). For now, we should stick to more reliable structural neuroimaging technology, such as MRI or CT scans, as evidence to support that someone has suffered brain trauma and disease and may not be culpable of their actions (Moriarty,

judges will easily accept the concept of diminished capacity resulting from a TBI. “From this standpoint, the exciting discoveries of neuroscience resonate far beyond mere philosophical banter and may have important implications for the way government institutions, including education and legal systems operate” (Mobbs, et. al., 2007, p. 693). However, as the literature on the cognitive dysfunctions of TBIs grows, there is bound to be a diminished capacity case that recognizes the importance of a TBI on criminal behavior. Once a criminal case has been firmly established this defense within the judicial court system, more jurisdictions will like follow suit in the same manner as the regulation change for both treating and preventing TBIs in educational, recreational, and professional sport

Future behavior is a question that is often asked of a forensic mental health professional. There are many reasons to include assessing potential future dangerousness or recidivism. This area of our work has great impact on the defendant’s life. The conclusions or opinion of the forensic mental health professional can sway the judge, jury, defendant, families, victim/s and society as a whole. This makes risk assessment both difficult and controversial, according to Hanson (2009) Risk assessments for crime and violence are different from other forms of psychological assessment because the presenting problem is not directly observed.