What's it take to become a forensic psychologist?

Profilers. Silence of the Lambs. The criminal mind. So eerie, so glamorous.

***** NOTE: AN UPDATED VERSION OF THIS ESSAY IS AVAILABLE HERE. *****

I get many emails and phone calls from students interested in pursuing forensic psychology as a career. So, by popular demand, here is a brief overview.

First, what is a forensic psychologist?

Forensic psychologists are licensed clinical psychologists who specialize in applying psychological knowledge to legal matters, both in the criminal and civil arenas. Forensic psychology is a subdiscipline of psychology, with its own professional organizations, training programs, and research journals. Forensic psychologists are found in academia, public service, and the private sector.

Forensic psychologists are called upon to assist in a wide variety of legal matters, including the mental state of criminal defendants (insanity, competency, etc.), jury selection, child custody/family law, violence risk prediction, mediation/dispute resolution, discrimination, civil damages, social science research (e.g., recovered memory), and civil commitment.

What is the state of the field?

Forensic psychology is a rapidly growing discipline. Currently, the American Psychology-Law Society has about 3,000 members, and the number continues to grow. Many experienced psychologists are seeking to respecialize into this field in order to escape the confines of managed care. Students are attracted to the field by our culture's growing absorption with all matters criminal, as well as fictional depictions such as TV's The Profiler and Criminal Minds.

The growth of forensic psychology is not without controversy. Some have accused forensic psychologists of being hired guns or even - less politely - "whores." Recent federal court decisions are causing increasing scientific scrutiny of psychological evidence. This in turn is leading to the development of increasingly rigorous training programs, instruments, and procedures that will allow us to withstand such adversarial scrutiny.

In the long run, well-trained forensic psychologists will likely fare well in the increasingly skeptical marketplace of the future.

What skills must a forensic psychologist have?

Forensic psychologists are psychological scientists. The investigatory component requires strong detective skills. We must compare data from multiple sources in order to test alternative hypotheses. The emphasis is on written reports and court testimony that are scientifically valid and can withstand scrutiny in the adversarial environment of the courtroom.

Becoming a successful forensic psychologist requires, at minimum, the following:

• solid clinical psychology training and experience

• firm grounding in scientific theory and empirical research (understanding of scientific validity, research design, statistics, and testing)

• critical thinking

• thorough knowledge of social and cultural issues

• legal knowledge (including mental health law, case law, and courtroom procedures)

• excellent writing skills

• strong oral presentation skills (and ability to maintain composure in stressful circumstances)

So, how can I sign on?

At the present time, there is no single acceptable training model for forensic psychologists.

The dominant model continues to be one in which a student obtains a doctoral degree in clinical psychology, and subsequently pursues a postdoctoral specialization in forensics. However, more and more graduate schools are beginning to adopt forensic tracks. An online list of institutions offering various types of Ph.D./Psy.D. programs in forensic psychology is available here.

Some newer programs also offer terminal master's degrees in forensic psychology, although it is unclear how master's level clinicians will fare in a field dominated by professionals with more advanced degrees.

Only a handful of formal postdoctoral specialization programs exist nationwide, and these programs are quite small and selective, typically accepting only one to two candidates per year. These rigorous programs are aimed at training future leaders in the field.

Some people also pursue dual degrees in psychology and law. There are a few such joint degree programs, and some law schools offer a scaled-down, one-year Master of Legal Studies degree. Having a dual degree may make one more competitive, but for most practitioners it is not realistic or cost-effective.

A more thorough discussion of the pros and cons of different types of educational programs is available in the brand-new edition of Psychological Evaluations for the Courts.

The Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice has just (Vol. 7 #2, 2007) published a point-counterpoint pair of articles on whether forensic psychology should necessarily require a doctoral degree:

"Raising the bar: The case for doctoral training in forensic psychology," by Carl B. Clements, Ph.D., ABPP, and Emily E. Wakeman, MA

"The time is now: The emerging need for master's-level training in forensic psychology," by Matt Zaitchik, Ph.D., Garrett Berman, Ph.D., Don Whitworth, Ph.D., & Judith Platania, Ph.D.

What tips do you have for trainees?

• Apply for forensic-related internships, such as at forensic hospitals, correctional facilities, and community mental health settings.

• Tailor your doctoral dissertation to a psychology-law topic in your area of professional interests.

• Become a student member of the American Psychology-Law Society, an interdisciplinary organization devoted to scholarship, practice, and public service in psychology and law.

• Purchase and read Psychological Evaluations for the Courts, a critical resource in forensic psychology.

• Stay current by regularly reading the leading journals in the field, among them Law and Human Behavior, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, and Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.

Becoming successful in this field is an arduous endeavor. However, for those with the energy, stamina and critical thinking skills, it can be a rewarding occupation.

But what about criminal profiling?

Oh, yes. That question.

Unfortunately, one of students’ biggest misconceptions about forensic psychology is that we do criminal profiling. This mythology comes directly from movies and TV shows such as Silence of the Lambs, Criminal Minds, and The Profiler.

In reality, most law enforcement agencies do not regularly use criminal profiling methods. When they do, they typically employ profilers with extensive backgrounds in law enforcement rather than in psychology. Perhaps more importantly, many scholars dispute that profiling even qualifies as a scientific method meriting inclusion in the behavioral sciences.

So, if your primary interest is in criminal profiling, the field of forensic psychology may not be for you.

***** NOTE: AN UPDATED VERSION OF THIS ESSAY IS AVAILABLE HERE. *****

CA could lead in criminal justice reform

Three bills on Governor's desk

Three of the most common causes of wrongful conviction are mistaken eyewitness identification, false confessions, and fabricated statements of informants.

California is poised to address all three of those problems, through major criminal justice reform bills now sitting on the Governor's desk. The bills would:

• require electronic recording of police interrogations in serious felony cases (Senate Bill 511)

• appoint a task force to draft guidelines for police line-up procedures to increase the accuracy of eyewitness identifications (Senate Bill 756)

• require the corroboration of testimony from jailhouse informants (Senate Bill 609)

The ACLU of Northern California has a quick and easy online form that allows people to send a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, urging him to make California a leader in criminal justice reform by signing these bills into law.

Congressional journal highlights APA torture debate

The struggle over the role of psychologists in military interrogations is reaching the halls of Congress. Today's issue of Congressional Quarterly features an article by Shawn Zeller, entitled "Torture Issue Ties Up Psychologists Association":

You'd think that psychologists, of all people, would know torture when they see it. But the leaders of the American Psychological Association, the profession's governing body, have been trying for more than two years to quell a faction of vocal dissidents who say the group tacitly condones U.S. military and intelligence use of coercive tactics.

The latest blow-up came last month at the association's annual meeting in San Francisco. The dissidents, calling themselves Psychologists for an Ethical APA, pushed for a moratorium on psychologist participation in military interrogations. The association's governing council eventually rebuffed that crusade, winning adoption instead of a new policy barring psychologists from participating in more than 20 kinds of torture techniques - including "mock executions, water-boarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation, sexual humiliation, rape," or "cultural or religious humiliation."

But the dissident psychologists aren't satisfied, by a long shot. They're angry that the association "avoided saying outright that all aversive interrogation techniques are prohibited," says Steven Reisner, a leader of the disaffected group who's a New York University psychoanalyst. What's more, he says, the APA's vote means psychologists may still participate in aversive methods as long as they aren't employed in a formal interrogation - effectively condoning controlled use of methods such as sleep deprivation, which other groups have condemned as torture. It's the dissidents' belief that the APA is striving to protect the professional standing of members who work for the Pentagon or CIA - and to keep the association's own relationship with those agencies in good repair.

Reisner's group is fighting on two fronts. It's asking APA members to withhold their dues until the association produces a more forceful denunciation of torture and aversive interrogation techniques. And Reisner says he and his colleagues also plan to lobby state psychological associations to adopt stricter rules. They have also provided information about the APA’s internal debate on the issue to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The article continues at Congressional Quarterly's web site.

Exiles in their own land: Sex offenders and the history of banishment in Western culture

Adam and Eve were banished from Eden. Much later, in 12th-century England, criminals could use banishment to escape death providing they had fled to a sacred place for sanctuary. Still later, convicts were banished to far-away prison colonies, among them the United States and, later, Australia. Banishment served the same function as execution, but “without the blood.” This form of banishment ended with the ebbing of new frontiers.

Now, in sex offender residency laws, we are seeing a new form of banishment – internal exile – that may fundamentally change the U.S. criminal justice system and the broader culture.

So argues Corey Rayburn Yung, a law professor at the John Marshall Law School, in a cogent analysis of the history and legal status of banishment.

At this point, residency restrictions have not seen their full effects. As I write, parole agents armed with GPS devices are fanning the state of California, knocking on ex-offenders’ doors and telling them to move. (See today’s Contra Costa Times for the latest news coverage as well as an interesting map illustrating the scope of the banishment in the San Francisco Bay Area.)

As large, urbanized states begin to enforce the restrictions, exile communities will develop. It is frightening to think of the unintended consequences of creating communities made up almost entirely of male sex offenders, where sexual deviancy will become the norm. Or of forcing those who reject these offender ghettos to disappear underground, where they will go unmonitored and unemployed, creating another recipe for recidivism.

Yung’s article, from the current issue of the Washington University Law Review, is available online.

Photo: Masaccio's Die Vertreibung Adams und Evas aus dem Paradies, public domain at Wikimedia

Sex offender laws harmful, human rights group warns

In a landmark study released yesterday, the largest human rights organization in the United States is calling for a dramatic reversal of sex offender policies.

Cataloging the far-reaching damage being done under the guise of protecting children, the 146-page report by Human Rights Watch urges an end to residency restrictions, online registries, and the registration of juveniles. Registration in general should be limited to those convicted of serious offenses who represent a demonstrated danger.

"Politicians didn't do their homework before enacting these laws," said Sarah Tofte, one of the researchers involved in the large-scale investigation. "Instead they have perpetuated myths about sex offenders and failed to deal with the complex realities of sexual violence against children."

It takes courage to publicly stand up for the rights of society's most demonized members. Human Rights Watch should be applauded for stepping forward.

"No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States" is a well-researched and thoughtful analysis. So, put on your reading glasses and turn on your printer. Then pass it along to everyone you know who is concerned about human rights.

Federal court strikes down portion of Adam Walsh Act

In a potentially important legal challenge, a federal appellate court has struck down part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

The Act, hailed by Sen. Orrin Hatch as "the most comprehensive child crimes and protection bill in our Nation's history," created a National Sex Offender Registry to identify, track, and confine sex offenders.

Friday's ruling, by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, strikes down the civil commitment portion of the law.

The law's "failure to require a court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation prior to permitting the individual's indefinite involuntary civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person constitutes a violation of due process," states the ruling in U.S. v. Comstock.

The Act allows for civil commitment based on the lower legal standard of "clear and convincing evidence."

The challenge was brought by the North Carolina Federal Public Defenders on behalf of Graydon Comstock, who was sentenced to a 37-month prison term for receiving computer pornography via computer. After his prison term ended on Nov. 8, 2006, the government certified him as a "sexually dangerous person" under the civil commitment provision of the Walsh Act and kept him in confinement.

Grayson will not automatically go free as a result of Friday's ruling, as the court stayed imposition to give the government a chance to appeal.

The legal decision may portend a split among appellate courts on the constitutionality of the new law, according to law professor Corey Rayburn Yung, who posted about the decision on his "Sex Crimes" blog. See his blog for legal analysis and additional links.