SAGE Journal Articles

Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 5.1

Citation: Rogers, R., Robinson, E. V., & Henry, S. A. (2015). Feigned adjudicative incompetence: Testing effectiveness of the ILK and SAMA with jail detaineesAssessment24, 173–182.

Abstract: Psychological assessments are highly dependent on the forthrightness and sincere efforts of examinees. In particular, evaluations in forensic settings must consider whether feigning or other response styles are utilized to intentionally distort the clinical presentation. The current study examines the effectiveness of the Inventory of Legal Knowledge (ILK) at detecting feigned incompetency within a sample of jail detainees. As an ancillary goal, several scales of the Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities were included in the same within-subjects simulation design. Results of the total ILK score raised concerns regarding the mischaracterization of genuine offenders as “suggestive of feigning.” Pending cross-validation, however, a Revised ILK proved highly effective, using a floor effect detection strategy. Although intended for Miranda-specific abilities, several detection strategies on the Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities appeared to be very promising within a broadened context of feigned incompetency.

Journal Article 5.2

Citation: Grant-Peterkin, H., Pickles, H., & Cornelius Katona, C. (2016). Mental capacity of those in immigration detention in the UKMedicine, Science and the Law, 56, 285–292.

Abstract: Asylum seekers and migrants can be detained in immigration removal centres (IRCs) or, post sentence, in prison while the Home Office makes decisions on their immigration status and/or arrangements for their removal or deportation. Currently, there is no process for identifying detainees who lack the mental capacity to participate in decision making relating to their immigration situation. Mental illness and distress are common among detainees. There are often cultural and language barriers; there is no consistent system of advocates, and many detainees are without legal representation. Mental capacity is decision specific. Clinicians in IRCs have a duty to consider detainees’ capacity for health-care decisions, but are not expected to carry out any assessment in the broader context of immigration decision making, and there is no set procedure for notifying immigration decision makers with any concerns about a detainee’s capacity. The Home Office focusses on safeguarding vulnerable people in detention, but not on whether such detention should happen or whether individuals identified as especially vulnerable have the necessary capacity for immigration-related decisions. In the community, asylum seekers and migrants can be supported in their engagement with immigration officials by family and friends and other advocates of their choice. This is not the case for immigration detainees. The current arrangements carry a significant risk of unfair decisions being made on the most vulnerable detainees without their capacitous participation. Recommendations for changes are made, including the need for a high threshold to be applied to justify any detention of people who lack immigration-related decision-making capacity.

Journal Article 5.3

Citation: Berryessa, C. (2017). Jury-eligible public attitudes toward biological risk factors for the development of criminal behavior and implications for capital sentencingCriminal Justice and Behavior44, 1073–1100.

Abstract: This experiment, utilizing a sample of death-qualified jury-eligible public, examines if and how evidence on biological risk factors for criminality might affect views on the death penalty in four contexts: death penalty support, mitigation, future dangerousness, and cruel and unusual punishment. Results suggest that the presentation of evidence on biological risk factors generally, regardless of the specific risk factor, may not affect views on whether or not the use of the death penalty is appropriate. The presentation of biological risk factor evidence does not appear to be viewed by as strongly mitigating, but biological risk factors generally do have a small, yet statistically significant, impact on perceptions of moral responsibility. The presentation of evidence on certain biological risk factors also may aggravate views of future dangerousness, which could potentially increase the likelihood that the death penalty is supported. Implications of these attitudes for the criminal justice system are discussed.