Improving Criminal Responsibility Determinations Using Structured Professional Judgment.

Marvin W Acklin,Joseph P Velasquez

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.700991

Abstract

Forensic psychologists commonly utilize unstructured clinical judgment in aggregating clinical and forensic information in forming opinions. Unstructured clinical judgment is prone to evaluator bias and suboptimal levels of inter-rater reliability. This article proposes Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) methods as a potential remedy. Following a review of canonical forensic assessment models, the prevalence of bias in forensic judgments, and inter-rater agreement in criminal responsibility (CR) determinations, this article presents a SPJ model for CR evaluations translated from violence risk assessment methodology. A systematic user-friendly methodology is described, applying procedural checklists, application of a mental state at time of the offense (MSO) model using structured data collection methods, aggregation of empirical evidence guidelines, and post-hoc hypothesis testing using the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH). A case study describes application of the procedural and CR decision model in a complex homicide case. The model demonstrates the power and efficacy of the application of SPJ to forensic decision-making and is relevant to other types of forensic assessment (e.g., competency to stand trial, post-acquittal release decision-making).

Highlights

The high levels of error in these findings suggest serious problems with application of diagnostic criteria by judges
The diagnosis of bizarre delusions, was rather poor falling into the 0.41–0.60 range (Bell et al, 2006). These findings indicate that the use of structured clinical measures in research settings, yields marginally reliable clinical diagnoses
The focus of this paper is the application of Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) violence risk assessment model to forensic assessment of criminal responsibility (CR), by substituting empirically-based a priori “postulates” for risk guidelines, utilizing structured clinical and forensic assessment instruments, formal aggregation of evidence, and post-hoc hypothesis testing

Summary

Introduction

A systematic user-friendly methodology is described, applying procedural checklists, application of a mental state at time of the offense (MSO) model using structured data collection methods, aggregation of empirical evidence guidelines, and post-hoc hypothesis testing using the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH). The AAPL Practice Guidelines for the conduct of insanity evaluations (2014) are even less specific, advising the forensic evaluator to “consider to what degree the mental condition and its relationship to the alleged crime meets the legal standard for criminal responsibility.” The reliance on ad-hoc clinical judgment is prone to intuitive heuristics and various biases has been severely criticized by advocates of actuarial or algorithmic decision making (Dawes et al, 1989; Hilton et al, 2006; Falzer, 2013).

Objectives

Results

Conclusion