Advertisement

Criminal Responsibility

  • Michael J. VitaccoEmail author
  • Diandra Sigurdsson
  • Alynda M. Randolph
  • Ashley B. BatastiniEmail author
Chapter
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Criminal responsibility evaluations are inherently complicated because it requires a clinician to retrospectively determine if a mental illness or other qualified mental impairment interfered with an individual’s ability to differentiate right from wrong or control their behaviors. The review of collateral information is important when making such determinations. This chapter will review how data from social media platforms, such as social networking sites (SNS) can play a pivotal role in understanding an individual’s mental state. This chapter will also discuss unique clinical and ethical challenges that arise when using social media as collateral information in criminal responsibility evaluations.

Keywords

Criminal responsibility Insanity Social networking Ethics 

References

  1. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. (2005). Ethics guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry. Retrieved from http://www.aapl.org/ethics-guidelines.
  2. American Law Institute. (1985). Model penal code and annotations. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Psychological Association (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology.
  5. Batastini, A. B. & Vitacco, M. J. (2019, March). Perceived credibility of social media data as a collateral source in forensic mental health assessment. In A. B. Batastini (Chair), Applications of technology in psychology-law contexts. Symposium at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Portland.Google Scholar
  6. Butcher, J. N., Graham, J.R., Ben-Porath, Y.S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W.G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring (rev. ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cirincione, C., Steadman, H. J., & McGreevy, M. A. (1995). Rates of insanity acquittals and the factors associated with successful insanity pleas. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 23(3), 399–409. Retrieved from.Google Scholar
  8. Clark v. Arizona, 126 S. Ct. 2709 (2006).Google Scholar
  9. Frederick, R. I., Mrad, D. F., & DeMier, R. L. (2007). Examinations of criminal responsibility: Foundations in mental health case law. Sarasota: Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange.Google Scholar
  10. Gottfried, E. D., Schenk, A. M., & Vitacco, M. J. (2016). Retrospectively assessing for feigning in criminal responsibility evaluations: Recommendations for clinical practice. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 16(2), 118–128.Google Scholar
  11. Green, E. P., & Follingstad, D. R. (2009). Third-party information in retrospective assessment of NGRI: Impact of source and supportive versus contradictory content. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 9(1), 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Knoll, J. L., & Resnick, P. J. (2008). Insanity defense evaluations: Toward a model for evidence-based practice. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 8(1), 92–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. M’Naghten case, 8 English Reporter 718 (1843).Google Scholar
  14. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Otto, R. K., Mossman, D., & Condie, L. O. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Miller, H. A. (2001). Miller-forensic assessment of symptoms test (M-FAST): Professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  16. Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality assessment inventory professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  17. Morse, S. J., & Bonnie, R. J. (2013). Abolition of the insanity defense violates due process. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 41(4), 488–495.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Packer, I. K. (2009). Evaluation of criminal responsibility (best practices in forensic mental health assessment). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, 60 Am. Rep. 193 (1887).Google Scholar
  20. Perlin, M. L. (2017). The insanity defense: Nine myths that will not go away. In M. D. White (Ed.), The insanity defense: multidisciplinary views on its history, trends, and controversies; the insanity defense:. (pp. 3–22, Chapter xii, 441 Pages). Santa Barbara: Praeger/ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  21. Plato. (1859). The Laws: B. IX. C. 8. In (trans: Burges, G.). The works of Plato: A new and literal version, chiefly from the text of stallbum, volume V containing the laws (pp. 372). London: Henry G. Bohn.Google Scholar
  22. Ray, I. (1838). A treatise on the medical jurisprudence of insanity. Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown.Google Scholar
  23. Rex v. Arnold, 16 How. St. Tr. 695 (1724).Google Scholar
  24. Robinson, D. N. (1996). Wild beasts & idle humours: The insanity defense from antiquity to the present. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rogers, R., & Bender, S. D. (Eds.). (2018). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Rogers, R., & Ewing, C. (2003). The prohibition of ultimate opinions: A misguided enterprise. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3, 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Fundamentals of forensic practice: Mental health and criminal law. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  28. Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., & Gillard, N. D. (2010). Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  29. Tillbrook, C., Mumley, D., & Grisso, T. (2003). Avoiding expert opinions on the ultimate legal question: The case for integrity. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3(3), 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vitacco, M. J., Gottfried, E. D., & Batastini, A. B. (2018). Using technology to improve the objectivity of criminal responsibility evaluations. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 46(1), 71–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Winslow, F. (1843). The Plea of insanity in criminal cases. London: H. Renshaw.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Augusta UniversityAugustaUSA
  2. 2.University of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA

Personalised recommendations