Criminal Responsibility | Psychological Evaluation and Assessments in Charlotte NC

A criminal responsibility evaluation is an assessment conducted by a mental health professional to determine whether an individual accused of a crime is criminally responsible for their actions. The evaluation typically involves a comprehensive examination of the individual's mental state at the time of the crime, including any mental disorders or conditions that may have influenced their behavior.

The purpose of a criminal responsibility evaluation is to provide the court with information about the individual's mental state and to assist in determining their level of culpability for the crime. The evaluation may include clinical interviews, psychological testing, and a review of relevant medical records and legal documents.

In the United States, criminal responsibility refers to the defendant's mental state at the time the alleged crime was committed. Two legal concepts related to criminal responsibility are the insanity defense and diminished capacity. Both concepts have significant implications in the criminal justice system and have been shaped by landmark cases in U.S. case law.

Insanity Defense:

The insanity defense is a legal defense that can be used by a defendant who is accused of committing a crime, but argues that they should not be held criminally responsible because they were legally insane at the time of the crime. The legal standard for the insanity defense has evolved over time, with significant cases including:

  1. M'Naghten's Case (1843): This case established the legal standard that a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the alleged crime, they were suffering from a mental disease or defect that prevented them from knowing the nature and quality of their actions or from understanding that their actions were wrong.

  2. Durham v. U.S. (1954): This case established the "Durham rule," which held that a defendant is not criminally responsible if their unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect.

  3. Foucha v. Louisiana (1992): This case established that a defendant cannot be held indefinitely in a mental institution solely on the basis of a criminal court's determination that they are dangerous. The state must show that the defendant is both dangerous and mentally ill.

Diminished Capacity:

Diminished capacity is a legal concept that refers to the defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged crime, but unlike the insanity defense, it does not absolve the defendant of criminal responsibility. Instead, it is used as a defense to mitigate the charges against the defendant. Some significant cases related to diminished capacity include:

  1. People v. Patterson (1976): This case established that evidence of a defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged crime can be admissible in court to show that they lacked the intent to commit the crime, even if the defendant is not legally insane.

  2. Montana v. Engelhoff (1996): This case held that evidence of the defendant's mental state, including their voluntary intoxication, can be admissible in court to show that they lacked the intent to commit the crime, but only if the defendant can show that their mental state was so impaired that they could not form the necessary intent.

Forensic Evaluation Of Criminal Responsibility

When the defense decides to use an insanity defense in a criminal case, mental health professionals, such as psychiatrists or psychologists, are hired by the prosecution and defense, or appointed by the court, to evaluate the defendant's mental state and provide reports and testimony regarding the defendant's criminal responsibility. This is a complex type of evaluation for mental health professionals in their roles as forensic examiners because it differs significantly from the evaluations they conduct in clinical (non-legal) settings.

Clinical diagnostic assessments are not always accurate, even under the best circumstances, such as when the clinician is working with a willing, honest, and cooperative client, and the focus is on current mental functioning and treatment planning. These circumstances are often not present when conducting evaluations for criminal responsibility. Since insanity evaluations focus on a specific point in the past, the effectiveness of commonly used clinical measures, such as psychological tests or diagnostic procedures, is limited. Instead, insanity evaluations rely largely on reviews of investigative evidence collected by the police, interviews with defendants, and information obtained from third parties who may have relevant knowledge about the defendant's behavior and functioning at or around the time of the offense. As a result, investigative reporting, rather than traditional clinical assessment, may be a more appropriate conceptual model for conducting criminal responsibility evaluations.

Common issues with the Forensic Evaluation of Criminal Responsibility.

Decay Theory

Insanity evaluations are often conducted weeks or months after the defendant's arrest, and the time gap between the crime and the clinical evaluation can be significantly longer if the arrest is made after a prolonged investigation. This retrospective nature of the evaluation can result in a distorted picture of the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense. Several factors can contribute to this distortion, including:

  1. The defendant's mental illness may have deteriorated over time, and the clinician may interview the defendant in a more disturbed state, leading to an overestimation of the psychopathology present at the time of the offense.

  2. The defendant's mental illness may have improved due to treatment or spontaneously, and the clinician may interview the defendant in a less disturbed state, leading to an underestimation of the psychopathology present at the time of the offense.

  3. Although not symptomatic at the time of the offense, the defendant may have developed symptoms subsequent to the offense due to the nature of the crime, events that occurred during the arrest or in jail, or anticipation of serious consequences. The clinician may attribute some of this symptomatology as being present at the time of the offense.

  4. The accuracy of the information obtained by interviewing the defendant or third-party sources, such as witnesses or family members, may be compromised due to memory deterioration over time, even if the information is provided honestly.

    Validity Concerns

    The information provided to the forensic examiner in insanity evaluations (and other forensic assessments) can be compromised due to personal or professional interests of those providing the information. As a result, concerns about the validity of the information are greater than in evaluations conducted for standard clinical and therapeutic purposes.

    Defendants may feel that a successful insanity defense is their only hope of avoiding a lengthy prison sentence, leading them to exaggerate or fabricate symptoms of mental disorder when describing their behavior and motivations at the time of the offense. Family members may distort information in ways that they believe are helpful to the case, and attorneys may selectively provide investigative information to the clinician, withholding anything that may lead to an unfavorable opinion. The evidence gathered and provided by the police may also be misleading, providing a distorted picture of the defendant's prior mental functioning. For example, a defendant who is mentally confused and verbally incoherent may be coerced into signing a "confession" drafted in organized and coherent language by an arresting officer, thereby masking the extent of psychopathology present at the time of the arrest.

Helpful Resources in the domain of Criminal Responsibility

AAPL Practice Guideline for Forensic Evaluation of Defendants Raising the Insanity Defense

Competency to Stand Trial Evaluation - Guide

Forensic evaluators play a crucial role in determining a defendant's competency to stand trial, involving a comprehensive evaluation of their mental and cognitive abilities. Findings are presented in a written report submitted to the court, and the evaluator may also provide expert testimony. Competency to stand trial case law establishes that defendants must comprehend the legal proceedings against them and participate in their defense, and the court must raise concerns about competency if evidence of incompetence exists. In cases where medication is needed to restore competency, the court balances the defendant's liberty interest against the government's desire for a fair trial.

Read More

Fitness for Duty Evaluation - Dr. Lisa Long

A Fitness for Duty (FFD) Psychological Evaluation is a specialized type of psychological assessment that aims to determine whether an individual is mentally and emotionally capable of performing the essential duties and responsibilities of their job. This type of evaluation is often required in high-risk occupations, such as law enforcement, emergency services, aviation, and transportation, as well as for other jobs that require employees to have a high degree of mental and emotional resilience.

To initiate the FFDE process through Dr. Lisa Long and Associates, please use our automated intake link. We guarantee a prompt response, with at least two appointment slots offered within 24 hours.

Here are some of the key elements of a Fitness for Duty Psychological Evaluation:

  1. Purpose: The primary purpose of an FFD evaluation is to determine whether an individual is capable of performing their job duties safely and effectively. This evaluation is typically requested when there are concerns about an employee's mental or emotional fitness, either because of their behavior or performance on the job, or because of a specific event or incident.

  2. Assessment Process: The evaluation process typically involves several steps, including an initial interview, psychological testing, and a final report. The psychologist conducting the evaluation will usually review the individual's work history, medical records, and any other relevant information before conducting the assessment.

  3. Assessment Tools: A variety of assessment tools may be used in a Fitness for Duty evaluation, including standardized psychological tests, clinical interviews, and behavioral observations. The specific tools used will depend on the nature of the job and the concerns that led to the evaluation.

  4. Areas of Assessment: The evaluation will typically assess a range of mental and emotional factors, including cognitive abilities, personality traits, emotional stability, coping skills, and interpersonal functioning. The psychologist may also assess the individual's risk of developing mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder.

  5. Final Report: The final report of the FFD evaluation will typically include an overview of the assessment process, a summary of the psychologist's findings, and a recommendation as to whether the individual is fit for duty or not. If the individual is deemed unfit for duty, the report may also include recommendations for treatment or other interventions that could help them regain their fitness for duty.

  6. Confidentiality: As with all psychological evaluations, the information gathered during an FFD evaluation is confidential and can only be shared with the individual's employer with their explicit consent. However, in some cases, the psychologist may be required to report certain findings, such as a risk of harm to self or others, to the appropriate authorities.

Fitness for Duty Psychological Evaluation is a comprehensive assessment of an individual's mental and emotional fitness for their job. This evaluation is essential for ensuring workplace safety and promoting the well-being of employees in high-risk occupations. Dr. Long Offers Fitness for Duty Psychological Evaluations, Email us to schedule today.

Job Posting | Psychological Associate | Charlotte, NC

Job Posting : Psychological Associate

Location: Charlotte NC 

Job Type: Part-time, Contract  

We are seeking a highly qualified and experienced psychoeducational testing provider to join our team. The successful candidate will be responsible for conducting comprehensive assessments for individuals with learning and/or emotional difficulties.

Responsibilities:

Administer, score, and interpret a variety of psychological and educational assessments

Conduct diagnostic evaluations and psychoeducational assessments to identify learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and other emotional and behavioral difficulties

Collaborate with other professionals, such as teachers, school administrators, and physicians, to develop and implement individualized education plans (IEPs) and treatment plans

Write comprehensive reports detailing the results of assessments, including recommendations for educational and therapeutic interventions

Provide feedback to clients, parents, and other professionals regarding assessment results

Stay up-to-date with current research and best practices in the field of psychoeducational testing

Qualifications:

Master's degree in Psychology, Strong knowledge of psychological and educational assessment instruments and practices

Ability to communicate complex information in a clear and concise manner, both in writing and verbally

Excellent interpersonal skills and the ability to work effectively with individuals from diverse backgrounds

Ability to work independently and as part of a team

If you are passionate about helping individuals with learning and emotional difficulties and have the necessary skills and qualifications, we would love to hear from you.

Please email your resume to Dr. Lisa Long using the button below.

Dr. Lisa Long In the news →

Dr. Lisa Longs expert commentary on the case of Madalina Cojocari's disappearance

I was recently contacted by Chloe Leshner of WCNC-TV, an NBC affiliate, to provide expert commentary on the case of Madalina Cojocari's disappearance. As a forensic psychologist, certain aspects of the case stood out to me, including the substantial delay in reporting her missing, the altercation between the parents the night she was last seen, and their subsequent unplanned trips. I commend the use of Caylee's Law in this case, which allows authorities to detain parents for failing to report a missing child. This not only preserves potential evidence but also pressures parents to cooperate with investigators and reduces the risk of flight by imposing bail conditions that restrict movement. Overall, I believe that Caylee's Law is a valuable tool for law enforcement in locating missing children and bringing justice to families. It's important to note that I am not officially involved in this case and was only consulted as a forensic psychologist. The principle of presumption of innocence must always be respected in the legal process. I hope that answers will soon be found for those suffering in the wake of Madalina's disappearance.

'One of the biggest red flags' | Forensic psychologist weighs in on the investigation into Madalina Cojocari's disappearance

Madalina's mother and stepfather have been in custody for more than a month, charged with felony failure to report a missing child. CORNELIUS, N.C. - The search for missing 11-year-old Madalina Cojocari continues. Madalina was last seen publicly on Nov. 21 and wasn't immediately reported missing.