We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The early conceptualization of Hugo Münsterberg in1908 laid the foundation for understanding different types of false confession, but tangible theoretical developments, assessment methodology of cases of disputed confessions, and empirical evidence base did not emerge until the 1980s. The gradual emergence of the science of false confession began with real life cases of disputed confessions in the 1970s and 1980s and the lessons that the cases taught scientists and expert witnesses interested in false confessions and psychological vulnerabilities. Theoretical developments led to better understanding of different types of false confessions. The psychological evaluation of real-life cases raised pertinent research questions, led to the development of innovative methodology and validated psychometric tests, and the collection of evolving empirical databases relevant to the evaluation of new cases. There is now a substantial evidence base for the science of false confession. This chapter explains its origin, development, and challenges.
To investigate the attitude of staff towards the recovery approach in forensic mental health services and the impact of training on staff knowledge and attitudes. A specially constructed 50-item recovery approach staff questionnaire, which focused on the core components of the recovery approach, was completed by 137 members of staff in in-patient forensic services in Lambeth, south London.
Results
Staff were generally very positive about the implementation of the recovery approach in forensic services and those who had received training scored significantly higher on the questionnaire than non-trained staff.
Clinical implications
The great majority of staff agree that the recovery approach to care does have a place in forensic services. This is important and needs to be built into the implementation of this approach in forensic services.
The concepts and empirical measurement of interrogative suggestibility and compliance are well established and validated in relation to identifying vulnerabilities relevant to assessing cases of disputed confession. 'Yield' and 'Shift', two distinct types of suggestibility, are incorporated into the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales (GSS), which are empirical tests of interrogative suggestibility. There are two parallel forms of the GSS, referred to as the GSS 1 and the GSS 2, which have been incorporated into a manual for researchers and practitioners, along with the Gudjonsson Compliance Scale (GCS). The GSS 1, the GSS 2 and the GCS are well-researched and validated instruments that are designed to measure individual differences and vulnerabilities that are relevant to some police interviews. They do not directly assess whether or not a confession is false; no psychological instruments are available for this purpose. Psychometric tests should only be used in conjunction with other assessment tools.
Significant ethnic differences have been found previously on a forensic unit in the management of psychiatric patients after a violent incident.
Aims
To study the management of violent incidents on all general wards in a large psychiatric hospital in South London. The main question is whether there are differences in the management of Black patients involved in violent incidents compared with White patients and, if so, what are the factors leading to it?
Method
All recorded violent incidents (1515 in total) on 14 general wards over three years (1994, 1996, 1998) were analysed using mixed logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio that the corresponding management decision (emergency medication, physical restraint, seclusion) was taken for Black patients compared with White patients after controlling for covariates and unobserved heterogeneity between subjects.
Results
Black patients were more likely than White patients to be given emergency medication and to be secluded after a violent incident, but not to be physically restrained. However, differences disappeared when the odds ratios were adjusted for other variables.
Conclusions
Racial ‘stereotyping’ was unlikely to have played a major direct role in determining nurses' responses.
The past decade has witnessed a recognition that unsafe criminal convictions may be occasioned by unreliable confessions.
Aims
To present a case which illustrates the dangers of using abreaction interview techniques in a legal context and demonstrate the relevance of the memory distrust syndrome to an unsafe confession to murder.
Method
We undertook a detailed assessment of a person appealing against his original murder conviction/the appellant’, and a careful scrutiny of all the relevant papers in the case.
Results
The appellant served 25 years in prison before his conviction was quashed as ‘unsafe’ on the basis of fresh psychological and psychiatric evidence.
Conclusions
Amnesia for an offence had been misdiagnosed, and the use of repeated abreaction interviews had further confused both the appellant and the original court. At the Appeal Court, the advice was that the man had experienced a form of source amnesia which resulted in an unreliable confession.
In this brief commentary the author concentrates on the treatment perspectives of Mealey's model. The main weakness of the model is that it does not provide a satisfactory theoretical connection between treatment and different types of target behavior. Even within the primary-secondary distinction, there are large individual differences that should not be overlooked in the planning of treatment.
A new suggestibility test, potentially useful in the context of police interrogation, was administered to 45 subjects who also completed the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Suggestibility was significantly related to low intelligence, poor memory recall, neuroticism and social desirability.
This paper deals with an aspect of the law relating to the use of a mentally handicapped victim as a prosecution witness in a criminal trial. Here the particular question was of the victim's competence to act as a witness, and the likely reliability, or otherwise of her evidence. The results of psychological testing were found to provide guidelines by which the court could distinguish between areas of the reliable and the unreliable in her evidence.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.