The argument for utilizing forensic experts in courts is that they have a role in insanity cases like an assessment of criminal responsibility, testifying as an expert witness. In testifying of the cases that involve insanity the forensic expert embraces a particular focal point to effectively emerge with conclusive results. The forensic psychologist, in this case, does not employ the notion of empathizing any action in the defendant’s favor but being closer to the gathered evidence from the particular defendant’s reasons and provide the sources of the evidence that have been obtained.
Both resilience and antisocial behavior serve to cull a certain group of the defendant from the rest which is not advisable. Sexual assault cases and rape, in particular, are most often committed under the influence of drugs (James and Patricia (2003). These drugs may either be induced by the perpetrators of the assault or the victims just abuse drugs and then later end up being molested under the influence of such drugs.
A forensic psychologist has to focus on the evidential link that will determine the sanity of the accused. The consistency of the factual information has to be put into consideration to validate the source of the information. In this case, the defendant will have all the total power to mitigate how the information will be withdrawn from him or she will be used to ascertain the reality of the situation.
The argument against utilizing forensic experts in courts is the use of the different methodologies. Most of their evidence is prohibited because they conduct the forensic examination in preparing their expert report and making use of different methodology than if they had carried out a practical security evaluation, which renders their view unpredictable. This confronts does not succeed because there is a lack of proof in the record to support their claims.
In their testimony, they state that the methodology they use in scrutinizing the cases that they handle is the “International Association of Professional Security Consultants Forensic Methodology.” They employ this method when they are conducting a retrospective forensic review. The forensic experts do not carry out scientific tests that necessitate strict observance to form and substance every time they are performed to reach their conclusions. In its place, they use the elastic Forensic Methodology and adjust the technique to each circumstance that they are confronted with (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002).
The forensic experts do not offer authorized support for their claims. Their view is unpredictable for the reason that their methodology varies by whether they analyze a case prospectively or retrospectively. It is reasonable that the forensic experts may reflect on diverse factors when they are analyzing an incident that has already taken place than when prospectively evaluating a situation that may come up in the prospect.
A forensic specialist prospectively alters the behavior in the courtroom by coming up with their views and give views that are based on facts and not their authority. It is through the integration of information from legal documents, interviews, and records from medical centers that the forensic experts give answers to questions at the borderline of mental health and law which is based on clinical experience and concrete science.
The consultation, reports, and testimony of the forensic experts are geared to shed light on the psychological matter in lawful issues. They make the consultation on both criminal and social issues and to both sides of the bar. The work is too involving and exhibits their interest, inquisitiveness, and concern to the legal representatives who maintain them and the other board of judges, lawyers who hear their testimony.
Reference
American Psychological Association’s (2002) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct document.
James and Patricia ( 2003) A responsibility of Canadian Psychologists in carrying out suitability and Criminal accountability assessment. Vol 44(4), 369-381.
Otto & Heilbrun,(2002) the evidential practice of the forensic psychologist Aglimpse toward the prospect in light of history.