Research brief: Juror's judgments of confession evidence for juveniles with intellectual disabilities

Click on image to enlarge

Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad
www.themindhub.com

IRD: Interrogation related decline -- problems for accurate "voluntary" confessions

Click on image


- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Research Brief: Mental illness and true and false confession research

Double click on image to enlarge




- iPost using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Research Brief 6-28-2010: Characteristics of criminal offenders with and without mild MR/ID

I previously made an iPost about this article.  I've finally read it.  I believe the information on the characteristics of offenders with and without MR/ID is particularly useful, esp. for fighting some of the common stereotypes of individuals with mild MR/ID.  I am only presenting select information from the article.  The article deals with other topics not highlighted here.

Salekin, Karen L. , Olley, J. Gregory and Hedge, Krystal A.(2010. Offenders With Intellectual Disability: Characteristics, Prevalence, and Issues in Forensic Assessment.  Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 3(2), 97 — 116

Abstract

Although the problem of people with disabilities as victims of crime has been well recognized, the known characteristics of people with intellectual disabilities (ID) also make them vulnerable to becoming perpetrators of crimes. Most such crimes are minor, but the 2002 Atkins v. Virginia decision called national attention to people with ID and people with dual diagnoses who commit capital crimes. This article reviews the data on offenders with intellectual and dual disabilities and the challenges related to their diagnoses and their roles in the criminal justice system. Offenders with ID are overwhelmingly individuals with mild intellectual disability, and their characteristics largely resemble those of offenders who do not have an ID diagnosis. They do not engage predominantly in any one form of criminal behavior, and their readily identifiable characteristics do not set them apart from offenders without a disability. However, their intellectual limitations make it more difficult for them to understand their Miranda rights; to work effectively with their attorneys; or for those found incompetent to stand trial, to profit from formal programs to restore them to competency. Assessment methods, particularly assessment of malingering of ID, have many limitations when applied in the criminal justice setting.

Below are select highlights extracted from this important article.  All are direct quotes unless otherwise indicated.  Emphasis (italic and/or bold font) made by blogmaster.


COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF ID AND RELATION TO OFFENDING

• At the most fundamental level, individuals with ID have problems learning, and it has been suggested that the term general learning disorder may be more accurate than either mental retardation or intellectual disability (Baroff, 1999).

• Individuals with ID learn more slowly than do typically developing individuals and have significant problems learning abstract concepts and skills.

• often exhibit cognitive rigidity (see, e.g., Dulaney & Ellis, 1997; Kounin, 1941; Lewin, 1936), have problems with attention (see, e.g., Tomporowski & Tinsley, 1997), demonstrate slow information processing, and have difficulty planning and implementing complex behavior (Ferretti & Cavalier, 1991).

• have been found to learn via imitation of others and to rely more on cues from others than do typically developing individuals (see Balla & Zigler, 1979, for a review).

• With regard to offending, it may be that the outerdirectedness and passive learning style of individuals with ID play a role in their becoming involved in the criminal justice system. For example, they may desire to fit in with a group of individuals and may engage in illegal activities in order to do so.

• In addition to difficulties in formal learning, people with ID commonly have problems in social learning, and impairments in this area can present as personality characteristics. Many studies have shown the tendency of children and adults with ID to have a heightened motivation for social reinforcement (Balla & Zigler, 1979), which can be seen in their tendency to do things to please others.

• These individuals also tend to have low expectations of success and, consequently, often fail to take initiative (Cromwell, 1963; MacMillan, 1969; Ollendick, Balla, & Zigler, 1971).
  

• When considering the three areas of adaptive functioning—conceptual, social, and practical (AAIDD, 2010)—it is in the area of practical skills that the majority of people with ID are more likely to demonstrate success. Individuals with ID are likely to have relative strengths in the acquisition of basic information and in the completion of tasks that are concrete, familiar, and have practical application in everyday life. Skills that can be learned through repetition are usually easier to acquire than are skills that require abstract understanding.

• An example of a skill set that involves both practical and conceptual skills is that of money use. Suto, Claire, Holland, and Watson (2006) demonstrated that individuals with mild ID can recognize denominations of money and make simple purchases, but they often have problems counting change and budgeting money.

• Given appropriate educational support, individuals with mild ID can learn to read, write, and become gainfully employed (see, e.g., American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000, p. 43), but without such supports, they have poor employment potential and are at increased risk for engaging in criminal activity.

• Once out of school, individuals with IQs at the high end of the mild ID range often blend into the general population; they have friends, marry, have children, and only need assistance during periods of personal or economic stress (APA, 2000; Baroff, 1999).

THE OFFENDER WITH ID Prevalence of ID in the Criminal Justice System

• Recent data indicate that at any time between 4% and 14% of incarcerated individuals in the United States have a diagnosis of ID (Petersilia, 2000), with rates of 0% to 2.8% reported when examining aggregate data from six countries (Fazel, Xenitidis, & Powell, 2008).

• Comparison of available research on the prevalence of ID in the criminal justice system is extremely difficult because research samples are not always representative of “true” ID offenders, and the method by which they obtain the data varies substantially among studies

• it appears that the prevalence of ID in the offender population may be greater than that of the general population, as is the prevalence of low cognitive ability that does not meet threshold for the diagnosis.

Characteristics of Offenders with ID

• are likely to be functioning at the mild level (IQ approximately 55–70).

• it would be expected that these individuals have had some success in independent living, have been employed in labor jobs or other jobs that require only limited cognitive skill, and have been part of a social network.

• individuals with mild ID are less likely to be identified as having a disability because their outward presentation is not recognizably different from the nonimpaired population.

• due to their limitations in cognitive functioning, they are more vulnerable to the negative influences of typical offenders who reside in the community and, if raised in a home where one or more individuals engage in criminal behavior, they are more likely to follow this course rather than carving out a separate existence.

• In reality, individuals with ID at the upper end of the continuum are, in most respects, no different from their counterparts who score slightly higher on an IQ test and/or who demonstrate less impairment in day-to-day functioning. Thus, it is not surprising that research has not borne out the previously held notion that ID offenders are fundamentally different from non-ID offenders.

• There exist a handful of prevalence studies on psychiatric illness and offenders with ID (see, e.g., Jones, 2007; Mannynsala et al., 2009; Riches et al., 2006). Data obtained from an examination of 44 pretrial reports showed that comorbidity was high (prevalence rate of psychiatric illness equal to 89%), with the three most common diagnoses being “any substance abuse/dependence” (68%), alcohol abuse/dependence (45%), and antisocial personality disorder (25%; Mannynsala et al., 2009). Psychotic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and depressive disorder were low at 5%, 5%, and 2%, respectively.

THE ROLE OF THE FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL

• the role of the mental health professional within the legal realm is to provide the trier of fact with “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” (Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702; hereafter referred to as Rule 702) that assists the Court in making a determination in that case.
  

• Issues of importance include the use of abbreviated measures of intelligence (see, e.g., Axelrod, 2002), practice effects on intelligence tests (see, e.g., Basso, Carona, Lowery, & Axelrod, 2002), variability in test scores over time and across setting (see, e.g., Bracken, 1988), validity of measurement of malingering for individuals with ID (see, e.g., Salekin & Doane, 2009), the Flynn effect (see, e.g., Flynn, 1984, 1987, 2009; Hiscock, 2007; Spitz, 1989; Truscott & Frank, 2001), and the use of clinical judgment in the assessment of ID (Schalock & Luckasson, 2005).

ASSESSMENT OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY IN THE LEGAL REALM: LEGAL COMPETENCIES

• With regard to trial level participation, the two most common forensic evaluations are (a) comprehension of Miranda rights and (b) competence to stand trial; this is true regardless of whether the defendant has an ID.

• Research has consistently found that individuals with ID demonstrate problems understanding their rights and that their suggestibility and tendency to acquiesce make them particularly vulnerable to providing involuntary confessions

CONCLUSIONS

• Research presented in this review demonstrates that offenders with ID are, in many respects, similar to those who do not have ID. In comparison with nonoffenders, the general offender population tends to have lower measured intelligence, be less educated, come from lower socioeconomic status, and come from chaotic home environments.

• In fact, we cannot “see” the offender with ID any more obviously than we can “see” the offender without ID. There are no labels on their backs, and there are often no obvious signs that they are impaired enough to warrant attention. That said, underneath what appear to be typical offenders lie true differences in cognitive abilities that can dramatically affect their ability to function within the criminal justice system.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, school psychology, psychometrics, educational psychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, adaptive functioning, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, criminal justice, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, Atkins MR/ID listserv, ICDP blog, mental retardation characteristics, offenders with MR/ID

Law Review Articles: Neuroimaging; false confessions

Brown, T., & Murphy, E. (2010). THROUGH A SCANNER DARKLY: FUNCTIONAL NEUROIMAGING AS EVIDENCE OF A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT'S PAST MENTAL STATES. Stanford Law Review, 62(4), 1119-1208.

As with phrenology and the polygraph, society is again confronted with a device that the media claims is capable of reading our minds. Functional magnetic resonance imaging ("fMRI"), along with other types of functional brain imaging technologies, is currently being introduced at various stages of a criminal trial as evidence of a defendant's past mental state. This Article demonstrates that functional brain images should not currently be admitted as evidence into courts for this purpose. Using the analytical framework provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 403 as a threshold to a Daubert/Frye analysis, we demonstrate that, when fMRI methodology is properly understood brain images are only minimally probative of a defendant's past mental states and are almost certainly more unfairly prejudicial than probative on balance. Careful and detailed explanation of the underlying science separates this Article from others, which have tended to paint fMRI with a gloss of credibility and certainty for all courtroom-relevant applications. Instead we argue that this technology may present a particularly strong form of unfair prejudice in addition to its potential to mislead jurors and waste the court's resources. Finally, since fMRI methodology may one day improve such that its probative value is no longer eclipsed by its extreme potential for unfair prejudice, we offer a nonexhaustive checklist that judges and counsel can use to authenticate functional brain images and assess the weight these images are to be accorded by fact finders.

Garrett, B. L. (2010). THE SUBSTANCE OF FALSE CONFESSIONS. Stanford Law Review, 62(4), 1051-1118.

A puzzle is raised by cases of false confessions: How could an innocent person convincingly confess to a crime? Postconviction DNA testing has now exonerated over 250 convicts, more than forty of whom falsely confessed to rapes and murders. As a result, there is a new awareness that innocent people falsely confess, often due to psychological pressure placed upon them during police interrogations. Scholars increasingly examine the psychological techniques that can cause people to falsely confess and document instances of known false confessions. This Article takes a different approach, by examining the substance of false confessions, including what was said during interrogations and how the confession statements were then litigated at trial and postconviction. Doing so sheds light on the phenomenon of confession contamination. Not only can innocent people falsely confess, but all except two of the exonerees studied were induced to deliver false confessions with surprisingly rich, detailed, and accurate information. We now know that those details could not have likely originated with these innocent people, but rather must have been disclosed to them, most likely during the interrogation process. However, our constitutional criminal procedure does not regulate the postadmission interrogation process, nor do courts evaluate the reliability of confessions. This Article outlines a series of reforms that focus on the insidious problem of contamination, particularly videotaping interrogations in their entirety, but also reframing police procedures, trial practice, and judicial review. Unless criminal procedure is reoriented towards the reliability of the substance of confessions, contamination of facts may continue to go undetected, resulting in miscarriages of justice.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, school psychology, psychometrics, educational psychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, adaptive functioning, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, criminal justice, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, Atkins MR/ID listserv, ICDP blog, Flynn Effect, neurotechnology, lie detection, confessions

iPost: Factors contributing to induced false confessions

Factors influencing police-induced confessions--including intellectual disability. Complete paper can be downloaded by following  link here.

Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and Recommendations

Saul M. Kassin 
John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Steven A. Drizin 
Northwestern University - School of Law, Bluhm Legal Clinic

Thomas Grisso 
University of Massachusetts at Worcester - University of Massachusetts Medical School

Gisli H. Gudjonsson 
University of London - King's College London

Richard A. Leo 
University of San Francisco - School of Law

Allison D. Redlich 
affiliation not provided to SSRN



Law and Human Behavior, 2009

Abstract:      
Recent DNA exonerations have shed light on the problem that people sometimes confess to crimes they did not commit. Drawing on police practices, laws concerning the admissibility of confession evidence, core principles of psychology, and forensic studies involving multiple methodologies, this White Paper summarizes what is known about police-induced confessions. In this review, we identify suspect characteristics (e.g., adolescence; intellectual disability; mental illness; and certain personality traits), interrogation tactics (e.g., excessive interrogation time; presentations of false evidence; and minimization), and the phenomenology of innocence (e.g., the tendency to waive Miranda rights) that influence confessions as well as their effects on judges and juries. This article concludes with a strong recommendation for the mandatory electronic recording of interrogations and considers other possibilities for the reform of interrogation practices and the protection of vulnerable suspect populations.

Keywords: police interviews, interrogations, false confessions
Accepted Paper Series

Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)