Clinical forensic psychologists are called on to conduct unbiased evaluations to inform legal decisions. They offer opinions on a wide range of legal questions in criminal, civil, and family matters. The Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (APA, 2013) note that evaluators must consider the effect of sociodemographic identities on the evaluation process and their competency to conduct the evaluation.
Mental health professionals conduct forensic mental health assessments (FMHAs) of examinees who reflect a full spectrum of sociodemographic identities and experiences, but people with marginalized and oppressed identities are more likely to be involved in the legal system than are people with privileged identities (e.g., Black, Hispanic1, or Indigenous people, as discussed in Carson, 2021; LGBTQIA+ people, as discussed in Jonnson et al., 2019; citizens of other countries, as discussed in Strong & Motivans, 2021). Therefore, forensic psychologists must be prepared to address how the discrimination and systemic oppression experienced by many examinees affects their presentation and the evaluation process. Evaluators must also consider the effect of their own identities; notably, people with minoritized identities are underrepresented in the field of forensic psychology (e.g., Fanniff et al., 2021; Kois & Chauhan, 2016). When an evaluator conducting an FMHA does not adequately consider cultural factors, the result can be a biased evaluation, despite the evaluator’s earnest intention to provide a neutral and informative assessment. Biased assessments may, in turn, harm examinees and perpetuate disproportionality in the legal system.
Mental health professionals conducting FMHAs want clear guidance on how to effectively incorporate cultural considerations into their evaluations (e.g., Fanniff et al., 2021; Kois & Chauhan, 2016). In an article recently published in Law and Human Behavioropens in new window, Amanda Fanniff, Taylor York, and Renee Gutierrez sought to provide such guidance by drawing on the knowledge and experience of experts in the field. They started by compiling a list of 81 potentially relevant practices from the literature on culturally informed FMHA. They then sought the input of psychologists with dual expertise in cultural factors and forensic assessment. The nine dual experts rated the importance and relevance of those 81 practices and suggested additional considerations. The study team then surveyed 21 board-certified forensic psychologists regarding the importance of the 66 potentially relevant practices that remained on a condensed list.
The dual experts and board-certified forensic psychologists concurred that 28 practices were very important. These came from each phase of the forensic evaluation process, from practices that prepare the evaluator before the evaluation to report-writing practices. The practices identified as being very important included questions that evaluators should pose (e.g., ask examinees how they identify their race and ethnicity) and factors to be considered in the formulation (e.g., the effect of acculturation, racism, and discrimination).
Although this study takes an important step toward establishing best practices in culturally informed FMHA, much more work is needed. As the understanding of cultural factors grows and case law evolves, recommended practices will need to be updated. Additionally, important communities were not represented in the sample (e.g., Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, and Indigenous psychologists). Future researchers can refine the wording of items and poll a more diverse set of psychologists.
The ultimate goal of this line of research is to inform forensic psychologists’ efforts to be culturally humble and to combat the effect of racism and other forms of systemic oppression while engaging in rigorous, impartial evaluations that are helpful to the legal system.
This article is in the Forensic Psychology topic area.