Psychological profiling is a subject in Forensic Psychology
that has always interested me. In fact, this is why I am pursuing this career
field. Psychological profiling encompasses many categories but for the purpose
of this discussion I will refer to psychological profiling as gathering data on
an individual, for instance by tests and interviews. Tests such as MMPI-2 ( Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2), is
an empirically based assessment for adults and it is part of the individual’s
psychological profile. Psychological profiling is used to predict dangerousness
in individuals called risk assessment. This assessment comprehends various types
of evaluation procedures, interviews, and observations. Risk assessments
provide a statistical statement about the chances of violent behavior happening
again. However, these results are never certain and only provide a statistical
probability of occurrence. Additionally, research has steadily shown that common
sense is not a reliable standard to what matters in these assessments ( Bartol,
2011). In fact, statistical models that rely on quantifiable, valid risk
factors, are greater than clinical judgment or professional opinion.
Furthermore, opinions that rely on intuition
and other nonscientific methods, jeopardize the offender profiling in terms
of court proceedings.
In light of expert testimony, clinical psychologists and
other experts within this field have to present reliable, legally sufficient,
and relevant evidence, to the case in hand (Bartol, 2011). The Fyrer standard was replace with the Daubert
standard because the first one was considered to be too strict, only accepting
“general acceptance” evidence. Approximately 30 states use the Daubert standard
for the admission of scientific evidence and it has been an invitation to
carefully examine an array of psychological tests used by psychologists in
their assessments.
An instance where the admissibility of expert testimony
might be affected, is a testimony based solely on personal opinion. A forensic
psychologist testifies in court that the offender is a danger to society and
that violent behavior will occur
without personally assessing the individual, this is inadmissible evidence. The
psychologist must personally evaluate the offender with empirically based assessment
tools to be admissible and relevant in court.
References
Bartol, Curt. Introduction to Forensic Psychology:
Research and Application, 3rd Edition. SAGE Publications, Inc, 03/2011.
