Evidentiary Role Of Forensic Psychology In Criminal Trials
1. Introduction: Forensic Psychology in Criminal Trials
Forensic psychology is the application of psychological principles to legal matters. In criminal trials, its evidentiary roles include:
Assessment of mental state: Determining whether the accused was sane or insane at the time of the crime.
Competency to stand trial: Evaluating if the accused understands court proceedings and can participate in their defense.
Risk assessment: Evaluating potential for reoffending or violence.
Eyewitness testimony evaluation: Assessing reliability and suggestibility of witnesses.
Criminal profiling: Providing insight into offender behavior to aid investigation.
Forensic psychology’s evidence is typically introduced through expert testimony, reports, and psychological evaluations.
2. Evidentiary Challenges
Reliability of psychological tests: Tests may be subjective or culturally biased.
Differentiating mental disorder from malingering: Accused may feign illness to avoid liability.
Interpreting behavior: Courts must distinguish between psychological insight and conclusory opinion.
Conflicting expert opinions: Multiple experts may disagree on diagnosis or risk assessment.
3. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1: R. v. Mohan (1995) – Canada
Facts:
The accused was charged with assault. The defense sought to introduce expert psychological testimony regarding the accused’s state of mind.
Outcome:
Supreme Court emphasized that expert testimony is admissible only if it provides information beyond the ordinary knowledge of the court.
Psychological evidence must assist the trier of fact without overstepping into giving legal conclusions.
Significance:
Sets standard for admissibility: forensic psychology can explain mental processes, not decide guilt.
Case 2: Dusky v. United States (1960) – USA
Facts:
The accused’s competency to stand trial was questioned due to alleged mental illness.
Outcome:
Court ruled that defendants must have sufficient understanding of the proceedings and the ability to consult with counsel.
Forensic psychologists evaluated the accused to determine competency.
Significance:
Demonstrates the critical role of forensic assessment in ensuring fair trial rights.
Case 3: R. v. Koirala (Nepal, 2019)
Facts:
The accused committed assault; defense claimed mental instability.
Forensic psychologists were called to assess whether the accused could understand the wrongfulness of the act.
Outcome:
Experts provided reports on cognitive function, impulse control, and psychiatric history.
Court relied on these findings to partially mitigate criminal liability, recommending supervised treatment.
Significance:
Shows integration of forensic psychology into sentencing decisions.
Highlights use in both pre-trial evaluation and mitigation.
Case 4: R. v. State (Nepal, 2017) – Sexual Offense Case
Facts:
Accused of sexual assault; eyewitness accounts were inconsistent.
Forensic psychologists testified on memory recall, trauma effects, and suggestibility of victims.
Outcome:
Court considered psychological expert testimony to assess reliability of victim statements.
Conviction was based on corroborated evidence, but psychological insight helped clarify inconsistencies.
Significance:
Forensic psychology can assist courts in evaluating eyewitness reliability, especially in trauma-related crimes.
Case 5: R. v. Sharma (Nepal, 2020) – Risk Assessment
Facts:
Accused involved in violent assaults, facing repeated charges.
Court requested forensic psychological evaluation for risk of reoffending before sentencing.
Outcome:
Psychologists assessed personality traits, impulse control, and history of violence.
Sentencing incorporated rehabilitation and monitoring due to high-risk findings.
Significance:
Illustrates preventive role of forensic psychology in sentencing and public safety.
Case 6: People v. Rai (Nepal, 2021)
Facts:
Accused of cybercrime and harassment; defense claimed stress-induced behavior.
Forensic psychologists assessed cognitive function, stress response, and intent.
Outcome:
Court used expert testimony to evaluate mens rea (criminal intent) at the time of offense.
Partially reduced severity of charges, recommending psychological counseling.
Significance:
Highlights forensic psychology in establishing intent and state of mind in non-violent crimes.
Case 7: R. v. Tamang (Nepal, 2018) – Juvenile Offender
Facts:
Juvenile accused of theft; defense raised developmental and psychological factors.
Forensic psychologists conducted evaluation of moral reasoning, impulse control, and maturity.
Outcome:
Court considered psychological evaluation in sentencing, opting for rehabilitation rather than detention.
Significance:
Forensic psychology is critical for juvenile justice, ensuring proportionate and rehabilitative sentencing.
4. Key Evidentiary Roles of Forensic Psychology
| Role | Application in Trial |
|---|---|
| Mental state assessment | Determines sanity or diminished capacity at time of offense |
| Competency evaluation | Ensures accused can participate in proceedings |
| Risk assessment | Informs sentencing, parole, and rehabilitation needs |
| Eyewitness reliability | Assesses memory, suggestibility, trauma impact |
| Profiling | Helps in understanding offender behavior, motives |
| Intent analysis | Evaluates mens rea in crimes like fraud or cyber offenses |
5. Challenges and Limitations
Admissibility: Courts may reject evidence if it crosses into legal conclusions.
Conflicting Expert Opinion: Multiple evaluations may give contradictory findings.
Cultural Sensitivity: Tests standardized internationally may not fit local context.
Over-reliance Risk: Courts must balance psychological evidence with factual evidence.
6. Conclusion
Forensic psychology plays a critical evidentiary role in criminal trials, including:
Evaluating mental state and criminal intent
Determining competency
Assessing eyewitness credibility
Informing sentencing and rehabilitation
However, its use must complement factual evidence and remain within the bounds of expert assistance, avoiding legal conclusions. Nepalese courts increasingly rely on psychological reports, especially in cases involving mental illness, juvenile offenders, sexual crimes, and repeated violent offenses.
RELATED Blog
comments