408 Forensic Psychology
treatment (e.g., Parham v. J.R.,1979), and waiver of Miranda
rights (e.g., Fare v. Michael C.,1979). Calls for research to
address these issues (e.g., Melton, Koocher, & Saks, 1983)
were answered by many researchers, and the need for further
research in this area increased as more punitive delinquency
laws of the 1990s strengthened the argument that youths had
to be competent to stand trial (Grisso & Schwartz, 2000).
FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY IN THE
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
While we focused our attention on three areas above, the full
range of topics that now fall under the rubric of forensic
psychology is impressively broad. To illustrate, the second
edition of The Handbook of Forensic Psychology(Hess &
Weiner, 1999) contains sections on applying psychology to
civil proceedings, applying psychology to criminal proceed-
ings, communicating expert opinions, intervening with of-
fenders, and professional issues (legal, ethical, and moral
considerations; training in forensic psychology and the law).
Among the civil proceedings discussed are mediating domes-
tic law issues, personality assessment, educational disabili-
ties, and civil competency. Among the criminal proceedings
covered are assessing dangerousness and risk; evaluating
eyewitness testimony; assessing jury competence; recom-
mending probation and parole; assessing competency to
stand trial, diminished capacity, and criminal responsibility;
interacting with law enforcement; the “state of the art” of
polygraph testing; and forensic uses of hypnosis. The section
on interventions includes discussions of punishment, diver-
sion, and alternative routes to crime prevention, substance
abuse programs, psychotherapy with criminal offenders, and
diagnosing and treating sexual offenders.
Research is currently being carried out within each of
these areas, and the results are reported regularly in the foren-
sically oriented journals mentioned earlier, as well as in
mainstream psychology journals and, less frequently, in law
reviews and other legal journals. In addition, many psycholo-
gists now take an active role in attempting to apply research
findings and other relevant psychological knowledge to the
legal system. In addition to the wide range of situations
involving clinical psychological evaluations, these efforts
may include writing research-based articles designed to in-
form both attorneys and social scientists, delivering expert
testimony, creating science-translation briefs, consulting with
attorneys, and making presentations as part of continuing-
education programs for attorneys and judges.
The future of forensic psychology looks bright, as com-
munication between leaders in both fields appears to be
increasing in frequency and understanding. The potential for
mutually beneficial cooperation between psychology and the
legal system seems more promising than at any time since
the optimistic (though inaccurate) predictions made by Freud
and Münsterberg almost a century ago.REFERENCESAmerican Heritage Dictionary.(1982). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of
psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47,
1597–1611.
Applebaum, P. S. (1985). Tarasoffand the clinicians: Problems in
fulfilling the duty to protect. American Journal of Psychiatry,
142,425– 429.
Applebaum, P. S. (1988). The new preventive detention: Psychia-
try’s problematic responsibility for the control of violence.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 145,779–785.
Baldwin, M., & Watts, B. (1996). A survey of graduate education
and training experiences in psychology and law. American
Psychology and Law Society News, 16,10–11.
Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978).
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983).
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (1999). History of forensic psychol-
ogy. In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), The handbook of foren-
sic psychology(2nd ed., pp. 3–23). New York: Wiley.
Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132 (1979).
Bersoff, D. N. (1986). Psychologists and the judicial system:
Broader perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 10,151–165.
Bersoff, D. N. (1987). Social science data and the Supreme Court:
Lockhartas a case in point. American Psychologist, 42,52–58.
Bersoff, D. N. (1999). Preparing for two cultures: Education and
training in law and psychology. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, &
J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the
discipline(pp. 375–401). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Press.
Bersoff, D. N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Grisso, T., Hans, V. P.,
Roesch, R., & Poythress, N. G. (1997). Training in law and
psychology: Models from the Villanova conference. American
Psychologist, 52,1301–1310.
Binet, A. (1900). La suggestibilite.Paris: Schleicher.
Binet, A. (1905). La science du termoignage.L’Annee Psychologique,
11,128–137.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 106 S. Ct. 2841 (1986).
Brigham, J. C. (1999). What is forensic psychology, anyway? Law
and Human Behavior, 23,273–298.
Brigham, J. C., Wasserman, A. W., & Meissner, C. A. (1999). Dis-
puted eyewitness identification evidence: Important legal and
scientific issues. Court Review, 36(2), 12–25.