Forensic Psychology: Mythology

Myths of Forensic Psychology

For most people, the words “forensic psychologist” probably conjure up images of nerdy, aloof investigators who use their superior intellect, unique pattern recognition, and incredible insight to ‘profile’ criminals and solve mysteries that conventional investigation techniques never could. Modern television shows like “CSI” and “Criminal Minds” propagate this stereotype (Canter,2010).

While forensic psychology can be used to aid police investigations, the contributions are not as drastic as television dramas and movies might lead one to believe. A forensic psychologist might aid investigators in terms of helping to identify the degree of planning, intelligence, and special skills of the perpetrator, but the idea of “getting into the mind” of a criminal and predicting their next move is mostly fictitious (Canter, 2010). Even more exaggerated is the fictional investigators ability to diagnose criminals they have never met. Diagnosis is hard. It can be incredibly hard to classify and quantify symptoms, even when talking with the person face to face. Even the criterion for diagnoses are constantly being shifted and adjusted in new editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (Durand & Barlow, 2016). Yet, fictional investigators are able to diagnose suspects with very little information.

Consider the following clip from the investigation drama “Criminal Minds”:

(Gordon, 2005)

The Insanity Defense

Another misconception in regards to psychology and the law is the ‘Insanity defense’. This is also known as a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict (Smith, 2012). Legally speaking, the concept mens rea means that “the offender must have had some conscious agency that gave rise to the criminal acts” (Canter, 2010, p. 6). Several psychological disorders can create conditions where a person may not be in control or fully aware of their actions (Durand & Barlow, 2016). In that case, there may be a preference to treat a mental illness rather than punish the defendant. However, insanity is hard to define and proving that someone was not in control is harder. The image  that is often portrayed of the insanity defense is that of a cop-out for criminals who claim mental illness to escape punishment (Durand & Barlow, 2016).

However, the truth of the insanity defense is that is used rarely, and rarely succeeds (Durand & Barlow, 2016). Landmark cases like John Hinckley, Andrea Yates, & Jeffrey Dahmer show the inconsistency of the ability of forensic psychologists to determine insanity as expert witnesses in the courtroom.

Silver, E., Cirincione, C. & Steadman, H.J. (1994). Demythologizing Inaccurate Perceptions of the Insanity Defense. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 63-70.anity Defense. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 63-70.

Silver, E., Cirincione, C. & Steadman, H.J. (1994). Demythologizing Inaccurate Perceptions of the Insanity Defense. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 63-70.anity Defense.
Law and Human Behavior, 18, 63-70.

For example, Andrea Yates, the mother who infamously drowned her five children in 2001 was found to be not insane in her first trial. Yates’ reasoning for drowning her children was to “protect her children from hell” (McClellan, 2006). This delusion and other symptoms seemed indicative of a schizophrenic disorder, yet psychiatrist Park Dietz declared her not insane. Dietz had not seen a client since 1982, and had no specific experience with Yates’ diagnoses (McClellan, 2006). Yates’ initial verdict was eventually overturned and she was placed in treatment in 2006.

In short, crime cannot always be explained through psychological disorders. In fact, doing so can create an inaccurate and  dangerous association between mental illness and violence (Durand & Barlow, 2016).