Forensic Psychology Definition
The field of forensic psychology lacks a universally accepted definition, a fact that may come as a surprise given its relatively lengthy history and substantial growth over the past four decades. The absence of a uniform and consensus-driven definition primarily revolves around the question of how broadly or narrowly the field should be defined. Various definitions span a wide spectrum, with some encompassing virtually any application of psychology to legal matters, while others take a more restricted approach, typically focusing on the involvement of clinical and counseling psychologists in legal contexts, serving as examiners, treatment providers, or consultants. This diversity in definitions underscores the complex and evolving nature of forensic psychology, reflecting its multifaceted role at the intersection of psychology and the legal system. Read more about Forensic Psychology Definition.
Tensions Between Psychology and Law
Despite the variations in how forensic psychology is defined, there is a unanimous agreement that it entails the application of psychological knowledge and expertise within the context of the legal system. In this capacity, forensic psychologists operate at the intersection of psychology and the law. As they collaborate with legal professionals, including attorneys and judges, several inherent tensions become apparent. These tensions have been characterized in various ways by commentators (e.g., Brockman & Rose, 2011; Haney, 1980; Melton et al., 2007), but they often revolve around common themes. Drawing upon the framework outlined by Haney (1980), we can identify eight fundamental distinctions between psychology and law that may contribute to these tensions between the two disciplines.
The field of forensic psychology exists at the intersection of law and psychology, where inherent tensions arise due to fundamental differences between the two disciplines. These distinctions, outlined by scholars such as Haney (1980) and elaborated upon below, provide insight into the intricate dynamics at play when psychologists engage with the legal system:
- Emphasis on Precedent vs. Creativity: The legal system places a significant emphasis on stare decisis, or legal precedent, wherein past cases and constitutional interpretation serve as the foundation for legal arguments. Creativity and innovation are not typically encouraged within the legal context. Conversely, psychology fosters a model of innovation, urging psychologists, both in research and applied work, to explore novel ideas and methodologies (Haney, 1980).
- Hierarchy vs. Empiricism: In law, decisions are hierarchical and authoritative, with lower courts bound by the rulings of higher courts. Legal arguments rely heavily on the established hierarchy and the authority of prior judgments. In contrast, psychology operates on an empirical model where the validity of a position or claim is established through the accumulation of a body of consistent and supporting empirical data, rather than authoritative declarations (Haney, 1980).
These foundational differences underscore the challenges and complexities faced by forensic psychologists as they navigate the interface between psychology and the legal system. While the legal system prioritizes precedent and hierarchical decision-making, psychology values creativity, empirical evidence, and a commitment to exploring new avenues of understanding. The successful integration of these diverse perspectives is essential for the effective functioning of forensic psychology within the legal arena. It requires psychologists to strike a delicate balance between respecting legal traditions and norms while leveraging psychological expertise to inform and enhance the legal process.
The interface between law and psychology is marked by stark differences in their respective methodologies and objectives, as articulated by scholars like Haney (1980). These distinctions provide a foundational understanding of the contrasting dynamics at play when these two disciplines intersect:
3. Adversarial vs. Experimental Methods:
- Law’s Adversarial Approach: The legal system relies on the adversarial method, wherein opposing parties vigorously advocate their positions within the structured parameters of a trial or appellate hearing. Bias, self-interest, and zealous advocacy are not only permitted but celebrated as essential elements of the legal process. The primary goal in law is often victory, as lawyers strive to secure favorable outcomes for their clients.
- Psychology’s Experimental Method: Psychology, in contrast, employs the experimental method, aiming to arrive at a deeper understanding of phenomena through diverse data-gathering techniques. Central to these methods is the systematic collection of data, utilizing procedures designed to minimize bias, error, and distortion in observation and inferences. While bias may still influence the research process, the psychologist’s objective is to attain an “objective” understanding of the phenomena, rather than securing a victory for a particular viewpoint (Haney, 1980).
4. Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Orientation:
- Law’s Prescriptive Nature: The legal field is primarily prescriptive, delineating how individuals should behave according to established rules, statutes, and legal precedents. It prescribes standards of conduct and imposes consequences for non-compliance, emphasizing normative behavior.
- Psychology’s Descriptive Approach: Psychology adopts a predominantly descriptive orientation, seeking to observe and understand behavior as it naturally occurs. It strives to describe and explain human behavior without a normative judgment, focusing on the empirical examination of phenomena as they manifest in real-life contexts (Haney, 1980).
These fundamental distinctions illustrate the contrasting values, methods, and objectives of law and psychology. While the legal system emphasizes adversarial advocacy, procedural fairness, and prescriptive norms, psychology prioritizes empirical investigation, objective understanding, and the descriptive analysis of human behavior. Navigating these differences is a complex endeavor for forensic psychologists as they engage with the legal system, requiring a careful balance between these contrasting approaches to address the complexities of legal cases.
The distinctions between law and psychology extend to their respective approaches and principles, as highlighted by scholars like Haney (1980):
5. Idiographic vs. Nomothetic Orientation:
- Law’s Idiographic Approach: Law operates in an idiographic manner, addressing each case individually based on its unique set of facts and circumstances. Legal decisions are made with careful consideration of the specific details and context surrounding the case. The focus is on rendering justice in the context of a particular case.
- Psychology’s Nomothetic Perspective: Psychology, in contrast, adopts a nomothetic perspective, aiming to uncover general principles, relationships, and patterns that govern human behavior. Rather than focusing on the particulars of a single instance, psychology seeks to identify overarching trends and principles that transcend individual cases, contributing to a broader understanding of human behavior.
6. Certainty vs. Probabilistic Evidence:
- Law’s Certainty-Based Decision Making: Legal decision-making tends to prioritize the appearance of certainty, resulting in dichotomous outcomes where individuals are either declared guilty or not guilty (in criminal cases) or liable or not liable (in civil cases). Legal decisions are often categorical and final in nature.
- Psychology’s Probabilistic Approach: Psychology operates on the basis of probabilistic evidence. Psychologists draw conclusions and make claims based on evidence associated with a certain probability level, often expressed as a level of statistical significance. As a result, conclusions in psychology are typically qualified and probabilistic rather than categorical (Haney, 1980).
These fundamental differences in approach and decision-making underscore the unique paradigms of law and psychology. While the legal system focuses on individual cases and strives for categorical outcomes, psychology seeks generalizable insights and emphasizes probabilistic evidence to explain and predict human behavior. These distinctions are pivotal for forensic psychologists as they navigate the interface between these two disciplines, bridging the gap between the legal system’s demand for certainty and psychology’s reliance on empirical probabilities.
The differences between law and psychology are underscored by their distinct orientations and principles, as articulated by Haney (1980):
7. Idiographic vs. Nomothetic Orientation:
- Law’s Idiographic Approach: Law operates in an idiographic manner, addressing each case individually based on its specific set of facts and circumstances. Legal decisions are made with a strong focus on the unique details and context surrounding the case. The primary goal is to ensure justice in the context of the specific case at hand.
- Psychology’s Nomothetic Perspective: Psychology adopts a nomothetic perspective, aiming to uncover general principles, relationships, and patterns that govern human behavior across various contexts. Rather than concentrating on the particulars of a single instance, psychology seeks to identify overarching trends and principles that transcend individual cases, contributing to a broader understanding of human behavior.
8. Certainty vs. Probabilistic Evidence:
- Law’s Certainty-Based Decision Making: Legal decision-making often prioritizes the appearance of certainty, resulting in dichotomous outcomes where individuals are declared guilty or not guilty (in criminal cases) or liable or not liable (in civil cases). Legal decisions tend to be categorical and definitive in nature.
- Psychology’s Probabilistic Approach: Psychology operates on the basis of probabilistic evidence. Psychologists draw conclusions and make claims based on evidence associated with a certain probability level, often expressed as a level of statistical significance. Consequently, conclusions in psychology are typically qualified and probabilistic rather than absolute or categorical (Haney, 1980).
These fundamental distinctions in approach and decision-making reflect the unique paradigms of law and psychology. While the legal system focuses on individual cases and strives for decisive outcomes, psychology seeks generalizable insights and emphasizes probabilistic evidence to understand and predict human behavior. These differences are critical for forensic psychologists as they navigate the interplay between these two disciplines, bridging the gap between the legal system’s demand for certainty and psychology’s reliance on empirical probabilities.
The differences between law and psychology extend to their reactive and proactive orientations, as well as their operational and academic natures, as discussed by Haney (1980):
9. Reactive vs. Proactive Orientation:
- Law’s Reactive Approach: Law tends to be reactive, with issues arising from external sources, such as cases brought to the attention of lawyers. Legal professionals respond to specific situations and disputes presented to them, addressing real-world legal problems as they emerge.
- Psychology’s Proactive Stance: Psychology, despite external pressures like funding availability and the imperative to publish, provides psychologists with considerable control over the issues they choose to study. Psychologists often take a proactive approach by initiating research and exploration into various phenomena, guided by their quest for knowledge and a desire to advance understanding, even beyond purely pragmatic reasons.
10. Operational vs. Academic Orientation:
- Law’s Operational Focus: Law is fundamentally an applied discipline designed to address real-world problems and provide practical solutions. Legal professionals, such as lawyers and parole officers, have well-defined roles that dictate their focus on specific issues within the legal system.
- Psychology’s Academic Emphasis: Psychology leans more toward an academic orientation, with psychologists having a significant say in the topics they investigate. The driving force behind much of psychological research tends to be a pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, driven by a quest to contribute to academic understanding, often extending beyond purely pragmatic considerations (Haney, 1980).
These distinctions highlight the contrasting characteristics of law and psychology. While the legal system primarily reacts to external legal issues and emphasizes practical solutions, psychology often takes a proactive stance, allowing psychologists the freedom to explore a wide range of issues driven by academic curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge. Navigating these differences is crucial for forensic psychologists as they engage with both the practical demands of the legal system and the academic exploration of psychological phenomena.
With these eight tensions in mind, included in what follows is an expansive survey of what can be characterized as forensic psychology. At a macro level, forensic psychologists can assist the legal system in four ways:
- Assisting the legal system.
- Assisting legal actors.
- Assisting litigants.
- Researching psychological matters.
In summary, forensic psychology is a multifaceted field that lacks a uniform or consensus-driven definition. Psychologists have made substantial contributions to the legal system in various capacities, echoing the visionary insights of early proponents like Hugo Munsterberg over a century ago. Munsterberg’s 1908 treatise, “On the Witness Stand,” explored numerous ways in which psychology could benefit legal proceedings, from lie detection to eyewitness memory and crime prevention, despite facing criticism at the time.
In the century since Munsterberg’s pioneering work, psychologists have engaged with the legal process in diverse ways. They have supported the courts in decision-making, conducted research on topics relevant to the legal system, and provided services to individuals involved in legal matters. As demonstrated in this research paper, the roles played by forensic psychologists are wide-ranging and encompass both well-established areas (e.g., the treatment of criminal offenders) and less-developed domains (e.g., the treatment of crime victims).
The field’s breadth and diversity reflect the expansive nature of the law itself. As a result, forensic psychology is poised to continue expanding its contributions to various legal topics, spanning individual-level interventions to systemic-level changes. The evolution and growth of forensic psychology over the past century underscore its enduring relevance and potential for further development in the future.
- Alison, L., & Rainbow, L. (Eds.). (2011). Professionalizing offender profiling: Forensic investigative psychology in practice. Oxon, England: Routledge.
- American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for the practice of parenting coordination. American Psychologist, 67(1), 63-71.
- American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7-19.
- Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
- Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2000). Model standards of practice for family and divorce mediation. Madison, WI: Author.
- Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2005). Guidelines for parenting coordination. Madison, WI: Author.
- Bartol, C. (1996). Police psychology: Then, now and beyond. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 70-89.
- Beck, C., & Sales, B. D. (2001). Family mediation: Facts, myths and future prospects. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Bottoms, B. L., Najdowksi, C. J., & Goodman, G. S. (2009). Children as victims, witnesses, and offenders: Psychological science and the law. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
- Briere, J., & Jordan, C. E. (2004). Violence against women: Outcome complexity and implications for assessment and treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19,1277-1282.
- Brigham, J. (1999). What is forensic psychology anyway? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 273-298.
- Brockman, J., & Rose, V. R. (2011). An introduction to Canadian criminal procedure and evidence (4th ed.). Toronto, Canada: Nelson Thomson Learning.
- Brodsky, S. L. (2009). Principles and practices of trial consulting. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
- Brussel, J. A. (1968). Casebook of a crime psychiatrist. New York, NY: Bernard Geis Associates.
- Bussey, K., Lee, K., & Grimbeck, E. J. (1993). Lies and secrets: Implications for children’s reporting of sexual abuse. In G. S. Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony (pp. 147-168). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
- Canter, J., & Youngs, D. (2009). Investigative psychology: Offender profiling and the analysis of criminal action. Chichester, England: Wiley.
- Ceci, S., & Bruck, M. (1999). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children’s testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity. Louis, MO: Mosby.
- Coates, C. A., Deutsch, R., Starnes, H., Sullivan, M. J., & Sydlik, B. L. (2004). Parenting coordination for high-conflict families. Family Court Review, 42, 246-262.
- Corey, D. M., & Borum, R. (2013). Forensic assessment for high-risk occupations. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 246-270). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Craig, R. J. (2005). Personality-guided forensic psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Cronch, L. E., Viljoen, J. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2006). Forensic interviewing in child sexual abuse cases: Current techniques and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 195-207.
- Cutajar, M., Mullen, P. E., Ogloff, J. R. P., Thomas, S. D., Wells, D. L., & Spataro, J. (2010). Psychopathology in a large cohort of sexually abused children followed up to 43 years. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34, 813-822.
- Douglas, J. E., Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Hartman, C. R. (1986). Criminal profiling and crime scene analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 4,401-421.
- Douglas, K. S., Otto, R. K., Desmarais, S. L., & Borum, R. (2012). Clinical forensic psychology. In J. A. Schinka & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (2nd ed.), pp. 213-244. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Emery, R. E., Sbarra, D., & Grover, T. (2005). Divorce mediation: Research and reflections. Family Court Review, 43, 22-37.
- Federal Rules of Evidence. (2011). Washington, DC: Lexis-Nexis Group. Forensic Specialty Council. (2008). Petition for the recognition of a specialty in professional psychology: Forensic psychology (renewal). Washington, DC: Author.
- Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works. Criminology, 34, 575-607.
- Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for cynics. Crime and Delinquency, 25, 463-489.
- Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
- Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
- Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. (1998). Assessing competence to consent to treatment. A guide for physicians and other health care professionals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Haney, C. (1980). Psychology and legal change: On the limits of a factual jurisprudence. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 371-398.
- Hare, R. (1998). Psychopaths and their nature: Implications for the mental health and criminal justice systems. In T., Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (pp. 188-212). New York: Guilford Press.
- Hicks, S. J., & Sales, B. D. (2006). Criminal profiling: Developing an effective science and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Hiller, M. L., Belenko, S., Welsh, W., Zajac, G., & Peters, R. H. (2011). Screening and assessment: An evidence-based process for the management and care of adult drug-involved offenders. In C. G. Leukefeld, J. Gregrich, & T. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook on evidence-based substance abuse treatment practice in criminal justice settings (pp. 45-62). New York, NY: Springer.
- Holloway, J. (2003, January). The perils of profiling. Monitor on Psychology, 34,1.
- Huss, M. (2009). Forensic psychology: Research, clinical practice and applications. West Sussex, England: Wiley Blackwell.
- International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2010). Improving police response to persons with mental illness. Alexandria, VA: Author.
- Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevalence. Lancet, 359, 1423-1429.
- Johnston, J. R., Roseby, V., & Kuehnle, K. (2009). In the name of the child: A developmental approach to understanding and helping children of conflicted and violent divorce (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
- Karmen, A. (2010). Crime victims: An introduction to criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cenage Learning.
- Kesic, D., Thomas, S. D., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2013). Estimated rates of mental disorders in, and situational characteristics of, incidents of nonfatal use of force by police. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 48(2): 225-232.
- Kilpatrick, D. G., Resick, P. A., & Veronen, L. J. (1981). Effects of a rape experience: A longitudinal study. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 105-112.
- Kirkland, K., & Sullivan, M. (2008). Parenting coordination (PC) practice: A survey of experienced professionals. Family Court Review, 46, 622-636.
- Kovera, M. B. (2012). Voir dire and jury selection. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 630-647).
- Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross examination. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653-674.
- Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574-586.
- Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Hebert, K. S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.
- Kressel, N. J., & Kressel, D. F. (2004). Stack and sway: The new science of jury consulting. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
- Kuehnle, K., & Connell, M. (2009). The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: A comprehensive guide to assessment and testimony. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Kuehnle, K., & Connell, M. (2012). Child sexual abuse evaluations. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 579-614). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Losel, F. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of meta-evaluations. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing re-offending: Guidelines from research and practice, (pp. 70-111). Chichester, England: Wiley.
- McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2007). Estimating the effects of misleading information on witness accuracy: Can experts tell jurors something they don’t already know? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 849-870.
- McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2008). Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 385-408.
- McGuire, J. (2002). Criminal sanctions versus psychologically-based interventions with offenders: A comparative empirical analysis. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 8, 183-208.
- McLean, M. (1995). Quality investigation? Police interviewing of witnesses. Medicine, Science and Law, 35, 116-122.
- Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Lyons, P., & Otto, R. K. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
- Millon, T., Simonsen, E., Birket-Smith, M., & Davis, R. D. (Eds.). (1998). Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
- Monahan, J. (2012). Violence risk assessment. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Forensic psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 541-555). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
- Ogloff, J. R. P. (2011). A century of psychology and law: Successes, challenges, and future opportunities. In P. Martin et al. (Eds.), The IAAP handbook of applied psychology (pp. 362-385). London, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Ogloff, J. R. P., & Davis, M. R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: Contributions of the risk-needs-responsivity approach. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 229-242.
- Ogloff, J. R. P., Thomas, S. D. M., Luebbers, S., Baksheev, G., Elliott, I., et al. (2013). Policing services with mentally ill people: Developing greater understanding and best practice. Australian Psychologist, 48, 57-68.
- Olczak, P. V., Kaplan, M. F., & Penrod, S. (1991). Attorneys’ lay psychology and its effectiveness in selecting jurors: Three empirical studies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 431 -452.
- Otto, R. K., & Douglas, K. S. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of violence risk assessment. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
- Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57, 5-18.
- Patrick, C. J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of psychopathy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
- Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242-258.
- Peters, R. H. (2011). Drug court treatment services: Applying research findings to practice—an issues commentary and resource brief. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
- Peters, R. H., & Belenko, S. (2011). Diversion programs. In M. Kleiman, J. Hawdon, & G. Golson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of drug policy (pp. 201-203). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Peters, R. H., Haas, A., & Hunt, M. (2002). Treatment “dosage” effects in drug court programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 33, 63-72.
- Peters, R. H., & Murrin, M. (2000). Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 72-96.
- Peters, R. H., & Young, S. (2011). Coerced drug treatment. In M. Kleiman, J. Hawdon, & G. Golson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of drug policy (pp. 142-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Porter, B. (1983). Mind hunters. Psychology Today, 17, 44-52.
- Posey, A. J., & Dahl, L. M. (2002). Beyond pretrial publicity: Legal and ethical issues associated with change of venue surveys. Law and Human Behavior, 26,107-125.
- Posey, A. J., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2005). Trial consulting. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Poythress, N., Monahan, J., Bonnie, R., Otto, R. K., & Hoge, S. (2002). Adjudicative competence: The MacArthur studies. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
- Redlich, A. D., Steadman, H. D., Monahan, J., Robbins, P. C., & Petrila, J. (2005). Patterns of practice in mental health courts. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 347-362.
- Redlich, A. D., Steadman, H. J., Monahan, J., Petrila, J., & Griffin, P. A. (2005). The second generation of mental health courts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 527-538.
- Simourd, D., & Hoge, R. (2000). Criminal psychopathy: A risk-and-need perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 256 -272.
- Snook, B., Cullen, R. M., Bennell, C., Taylor, P., & Gendreau, P. (2008). The criminal profiling illusion: What’s behind the smoke and mirrors? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1257-1276.
- Stafford, K. P., & Sellbom, M. O. (2012). Assessment of competence to stand trial. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 412-439).
- Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Sullivan, M. (2008). Coparenting and the parenting coordination process. Journal of Child Custody, 5, 4-24.
- Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965).
- Walker, L., & Monahan, J. (1987). Social frameworks: A new use of social science in law. Virginia Law Review, 73, 559-792.
- Wells, G., & Loftus, E. (2012). Eyewitness memory for people and events. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 617-629). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Wilson, C., & Powell, M. (2001). A guide to interviewing children: Essential skills for counsellors, police, lawyers and social workers. Sydney, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.
- Zapf, P., & Roesch, R. (2010). Evaluation of competence to stand trial. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Rogers Imports, 216 F. Supp 670 (Southern District of New York 1963).