According to the APA guidelines, psychology practice requires empirically sound and ascertainable principles of evidence for complete admissibility in court. Perhaps, the high quality of evidence expected within any legal court explains the reason for the existent of stringent frameworks to guard the practice. Informal examinations are not admissible within courts of law. Consequently, the professionals within the mental health field ought to undergo a thorough and rigorous curriculum to enable them to adopt and practice logical reasoning and investigation methodologies (Canter, 2004). Because most cases within the practice of forensic psychology are of great magnitude, there is an increasing need to integrate sound empirical case analysis approaches by practitioners to help minimize the instances of biases and faults by the attorneys during the judgment process. As indicated in the Frye and Daubert standards, the psychological examination or assessments should be so discrete and resolute to offer a clear picture of the client’s mental suffering or deprivation. Additionally, the basic research provisions including the issues of informed consent and confidentiality should be pertinent from the process of information gathering to the analysis as well as presentation of facts.
The process ought to follow a purely scientific procedure and logic capable of being proved by all sound persons (Kassin, Appleby & Perillo, 2010). It should also be noted that there are scenarios when the evidence presented before the legal court might lack admissibility or be rendered vain. This is particularly if the evidence is not gathered through a formal procedure. Additionally, in cases where the ethical issues regarding informed consent and confidentiality are not honored by the psychologist or the investigator, the evidence might not be accepted before a legal court. Empirically based evidence is a basic springboard for effective criminal profiling. If this consideration is realized at the beginning of the case, it is clear that a rational-legal decision is bound to be achieved.
Canter, D. (2004). Offender profiling and investigative psychology. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil, vol. 1: 1–15.
Kassin, S. Appleby, S. & Perillo, J. (2010). Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, vol. 15: 39–55.