Workshop 6
Combating Bias in Forensic Practice: What Goes Wrong and Why in Evaluations of People and Evidence
3.5 CE hours
1 PM - 4:30 PM
Luna Filipović, Ph.D.
Vern Pierson, Esq.
description: | This workshop will bring together the latest academic and professional insights in a joint effort to equip participants with practical tools that help combat bias in their everyday practice. It will offer unique, multidisciplinary perspectives to analyses of real-life cases from diverse, legally relevant contexts, including psychological evaluation of victims with post traumatic disorders and witness reliability assessment in court and police investigations. In this way, we will also bridge the gap between clinical and legal practice and allow the knowledge base to be shared for the benefit of both psychology and law practitioner groups that constitute the APLS community.
There are different sources of bias in the process of forensic evaluation of individuals and evidence. A number of different factors have been identified that can significantly impact forensic assessment in different clinical and legal contexts (e.g., Oxburgh et al., 2016), and we narrowed our focus to two main sources of bias that are gaining prominence after prior neglect, namely: (1) bias due to a lack of understanding about how assessment tools and methods of evidence elicitation affect the evaluation of diverse populations and groups (e.g., members of different linguistic or cultural communities), and (2) “tunnel vision” bias that is engendered due to institutional interests or entrenchment of procedures without scientific questioning or an “open mind” mentality in application.
These two points of focus have been selected due to the fact that recent research and practice have identified problems in “how things have been done” historically and previously unexamined and unchallenged errors of the past are starting to get addressed and rectified more frequently after years or decades of injustice. Thus, one of our goals here is to bring this new knowledge to both academics and practitioners who can spread it further in their educational or professional training contexts in order to avoid further personal and human tragedies. Another reason for the selection of the topics is the fact that we are faced with increasing demographic changes that are happening in societies across the globe due to population shifts, migration, and polarization along the ethnic, cultural, and national boundaries. Our work will show how understanding of the differences and cultural barriers enables us to break them and bridge the divides with inclusive practices in psychology and law.
The first part of the workshop will be dedicated to the bias in different tools and methods used to establish whether feigning or avoidance is occurring, e.g., in relation to medical symptoms, to knowledge and authenticity of information, or to the ability to communicate in the required language (English). We will look at tests such as SIMS and various tests of English proficiency used in contentious legal contexts (such as trauma-related insurance claims and crime investigations with child and adult victims). Clinical psychology (e.g., Merckelbach & Smith, 2003) provides a basis for cautious optimism regarding the usefulness of the SIMS as a screening tool for malingering, but we will show that caution needs to be enhanced when this and similar tests are administered to people with different ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds in order to avoid bias in evaluation. We will also look at bias-showing and bias-inducing questions in victim and witness interviews with both children and adults and work on strategies to detect and prevent them in real-time, during evidence elicitation. Finally, we will show that tests of language proficiency that are habitually administered are not enough for establishing the capacity to communicate and that further assessment methods need to be applied for adequate treatment of linguistically and culturally diverse populations in investigative examinations. Crucially, we will use real-life cases and practical illustrations so participants can learn from authentic examples and use those further in their own practice and training.
The second part of the workshop will zoom in on the fundamental principle of “keeping an open mind” that is essential in forensic investigations and evaluations but which is often lost because of the “tunnel vision” bias that is due to a complex set of pressures, including time, cognitive and emotional load, prior comparable experience, institutional demands, etc. The consequence of this complexity can be biased decision-making in evidence interpretation and in the assessment of individuals. We will focus on case studies that illustrate what can go wrong in the assessment and explain the reasons behind it in each case. In particular, we will discuss some recent cases that captured the imagination of the general public at large due to widely broadcast programs about them, such as the kidnapping of Denise Huskins (The American Nightmare documentary). DA Pierson was personally involved in the relevant investigations and will be able to share his invaluable knowledge and expertise on bias gone wrong, and too far for too long, as well as advocate for prevention and remedies.
Identify, define, and exemplify what constitutes bias in forensic assessment and evaluation of individuals and of evidence in legal and clinical contexts.
Anticipate, prevent, and detect biased reasoning in forensic assessment.
Become equipped with key knowledge and authentic real-life examples that illustrate best and worst practices, which can be used in further training of attendees’ team members and colleagues.