Finally, it is worth noting that the debate over
clinical versus statistical prediction discussed in
Chapter 10 also applies to the issue of how best
to predict dangerousness. Quinsey, Harris, Rice,
and Cormier (1999) argue strongly that the clinical
prediction of dangerousness (i.e., a prediction based
on clinical impression) should be replaced by actu-
arial methods. Litwack (2001), however, counters
that there is not enough empirical evidence to
date to suggest that actuarial prediction is clearly
superior to clinical prediction of dangerousness.
Further, he proposes that the prediction of danger-
ousness is sufficiently different from other predic-
tion tasks performed by psychologists such that
actuarial prediction may not offer much of an
advantage.
This is not to say that research efforts to
improve the actuarial prediction of dangerousness
are futile and should cease. Rather, because of the
tremendous implications for public policy, to say
nothing of human values, much more research is
needed in this broad area of forensic psychology.
A number of recent efforts are encouraging (e.g.,
Constanzo, 2004; Greene & Heilbrun, 2011).
Psychological TreatmentIn the case of prisoners, legally established rights to
psychological treatment or rehabilitation are still
somewhat in a state of flux. Such persons have
the right to medical treatment, and juvenile prison-
ers generally have the right to both psychological
and medical treatment. When the right to psycho-
logical treatment for adult prisoners is recognized, it
is most often for individuals who are severely dis-
turbed mentally. Some experts are reluctant to pro-
mote treatment rights for prisoners because they
believe that sometimes punishment and deprivation
occur under the label of“treatment”or perhaps
“behavior modification.”
People have a right to refuse treatment. In such
instances, the state must show a compelling interest
that will override the prisoner’s refusal. Because of
the ambiguities and potential for violations of human
rights, many correctional institutions now have com-
mittees to protect the rights of prisoners. These
committees typically include a majority of members
who are not affiliated with the institution.
There are wider forensic treatment implications,
however. In criminal cases, therapy may focus on
restoring an incompetent person to a state of mental
competence. Or therapy may be undertaken to pro-
vide emotional support for one who faces imprison-
ment. For criminal offenders, the focus is often on
personality problems, sexual behavior, and aggres-
siveness. Sometimes therapy is conducted while the
person is incarcerated, but other times it is on an out-
patient basis as a condition of parole or probation. The
forms of therapy employed include both individual
and group methods that involve everything from
insight-oriented and supportive methods to be-
havioral techniques, biofeedback, and cognitive
approaches. One of the major problems for the foren-
sic clinician is the knowledge that testimony may be
required later in court. What the court wants, what
the client’s attorney will permit, what is best for the
client, and what the clinician sees as most desirable
may conflict and lead to many problems. In child cus-
tody issues, the treatment problems and conflicts
among parents and child may be especially difficult
and poignant. They can often lead to real professional
dilemmas. For example, to best help the child, the
parents should undergo therapy themselves, but
sometimes one or both will refuse to do so.Consultation
Another common activity of forensic psychologists
is consultation. Of course, many of the activities
discussed previously also involve some manner of
consultation. In this section, we focus on several
additional aspects of consultation.Jury Selection. A consulting psychologist may
work with attorneys in the process ofjury selection
(Constanzo, 2004; Greene & Heilbrun, 2011).
The legal termvoir direrefers to that part of a trial
in which a jury is impaneled. During this phase,
attorneys have the opportunity to discover biases in
potential jurors; to obtain information forperemptory
challenges(a set number of challenges allowed each
side in a trial to remove jurors thought to be biased552 CHAPTER 19