Discussion/Asssignment





WEEK 1: AT A GLANCE CLINICAL VERSUS FORENSIC INTERVIEWING AND

EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION pplying psychological principles to interviewing and evaluation in forensic contexts is a challenging undertaking with complex issues to consider. Practitioners in both psychology and law aim to accommodate and assimilate the theories and practices from the two fields. Mental health practitioners routinely face this challenge as they apply the theories and practices of various subfields in psychology (e.g., clinical, social, etc.) to forensic contexts. As a result, this unique application of psychology to law requires procedures and considerations distinct from a purely clinical setting.

Over the last several decades, mental health practitioners have found themselves interacting with the legal system in a variety of contexts, and it has become increasingly important to consider the ethical and professional issues that arise when we apply psychology to legal contexts. Within the criminal law context, mental health professionals are often involved in the apprehension of suspects, the interrogation of suspects, interviewing of witnesses and victims, assessment and evaluation of defendants for various psycho-legal issues (e.g., competency, insanity, risk of dangerousness, and mitigating and aggravating circumstances). Mental health professionals also find themselves involved in civil and family court arenas performing parental fitness evaluations, risk assessments, and independent medical evaluations (IMEs). The IMEs are often used to evaluate psychological functioning and emotional distress of the victim due to an egregious act, such as sexual harassment or personal injury.

This week, we will review the scope and goals of forensic interviews and evaluation. We will also analyze the differences between clinical and forensic interviewing and evaluation and consider the influence of culture on the interviewing and evaluation process.

DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT RESOURCES



