Search

In Foucha v. Louisiana (1992), the United States Supreme Court ruled that individuals adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) could not remain in a forensic hospital if they were no longer mentally ill and dangerous. Since this decision, a variety of important questions have arisen related to the insanity defense and what should happen to insanity acquittees post-adjudication. This article provides an analysis of clinical issues confronting forensic examiners when psychosis as a result of substance abuse is the underlying condition supporting an insanity defense. To accomplish this analysis, this article provides the reader with a review of literature showing the complex relationship between psychosis and substance abuse. Second, this article investigates how substance-induced psychosis may impact both insanity opinions and subsequent conditional release decisions. Third, the article aims to provide research-driven information to assist clinicians in conducting conditional release evaluations. Finally, this paper provides a model for evaluating dangerousness in the context of conditional release evaluations. Given the substantial comorbidity between substance abuse and psychosis, it is critical for researchers and clinicians to consider potential effects of substance abuse when evaluating insanity acquittees for conditional release, especially as substance use relates to future dangerousness. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Professional ethics is an emotionally-laden topic which serves to delimit the boundaries of acceptable practice. This special issue of the journal Behavioral Sciences & the Law addresses only a small sampling of the vast issues associated with professional ethics. The first two contributions by W. Lawrence Fitch and his associates and J.D. Ralph Slovenko have addressed an issue of ethical responsibilities of attorneys as it relates to mental health experts and psychiatric issues. The next three papers address specific issues of particular relevance to forensic practice.

Despite the widespread belief among the public and an increasing number of law enforcement personnel that individuals who harm animals often harm other people, the subject of animal maltreatment has received little attention from behavioral scientists. Advances in comparative neuroanatomy have highlighted the ability of animals to feel physical and emotional pain, including complex psychological reactions to traumatic events. These advances, and recent studies (however sparse) that support the notion that perpetrators of crimes against animals often commit other crimes, have arguably created an ethical and practical imperative for behavioral scientists to undertake a serious examination of animal maltreatment and potential mechanisms for responding to it. In addition, the close and complex relationships many Americans have with animals and the advancements in animal protection law in the past two decades necessitate expertise on the part of forensic psychologists and psychiatrists, who will increasingly be called upon to evaluate animal maltreatment offenders and consult on related policy and legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]