Although the domain of law and psychology is a burgeoning and popular field of study, there has never been a concerted effort to evaluate current training models or to develop newer, more effective ones. Forty-eight invited participants attended a national conference held at Villanova Law School to remedy this deficiency. Working groups addressed issues of education and training for the undergraduate level; for doctoral-level programs in law and social science; for forensic clinical training; for joint-degree (JD/PhD-PsyD) programs; for those in practica, internships, and postdoctoral programs; and for continuing education. This article delineates levels and models of training in each of these areas.

Little information has been available on the frequency of police interrogation and rights waiver in juvenile eases. Research in developmental psychology suggests that the cognitive and emotional characteristics of juveniles, coupled with the circumstances inherent in police interrogations, might render very infrequent the assertion of the right to silence by juveniles. Furthermore, both legal and social science commentators have suggested that an increase in certain due process protections (e.g., presence of parents at questioning) might not mitigate the forementioned effect. To test these assumptions, the study examined juvenile court records for a random sample of felony "referrals over a three-year period (491 juveniles, 707 referrals). Police questioning occurred in 65-75% of felony referrals, and juveniles in about 90% of these referrals provided police with information (more than personal identification). These results were examined in relation to demographic and offense variables. Due process protections were significantly more frequent during one year than during a previous year, but there was no difference between years in the frequency of rights waiver. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Little systematic research has been directed towards the determination of appropriate residential placements for deinstitutionalized psychiatric patients. A previous study suggested that the Community Competence Scale (CCS), a 124-item multiscale instrument, had potential utility for community placement decisions. In the present study, the CCS was administered to 52 deinstitutionalized patients placed in an urban boarding home, a rural boarding home, and urban apartments. No significant differences on the CCS occurred attributable to urban vs. rural setting; accordingly, the urban and rural boarding home groups were combined. The CCS discriminated between patients placed in boarding home and apartment settings after variability between the groups associated with age and diagnosis had been removed. The CCS discriminated more effectively between the groups than did prior hospitalization, subsequent rehospitalization, or the Social Competence Scale (SCS). The CCS was significantly positively correlated with the SCS and significantly negatively correlated with previous hospitalization and age.

No abstract

Forensic psychology can be viewed broadly, as the study of all aspects of behavior directly related to the legal process, or more narrowly as a subarea of clinical psychology involving evaluations of, and testimony about, individuals in reference to a legal question. This chapter traces the history of attempts to apply psychological concepts and data to the legal system, beginning with the evolution of the insanity defense in eighteenth‐ and nineteenth‐century England. As the field of psychology emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century, psychologists' early enthusiasm for applying psychological methods and knowledge to legal questions (e.g., Munsterberg and Freud) was not met with ready acceptance by the legal field. By the 1950s, attempts to inject relevant psychological knowledge into legal cases were becoming more widespread, both by means of clinical expert testimony and via amicus curaie (friend of the court) briefs. Involvement of research psychologists in the legal system was sporadic until the 1960s, when an increased emphasis on social relevance led many psychologists to focus their research efforts toward the legal system, studying factors such as eyewitness memory, pretrial publicity, civil rights, judicial instructions, and jury decision making. Paralleling this research emphasis was the founding of professional organizations such as the American Psychology‐Law Society in 1969, the initiation of several psychology‐law journals in the last three decades, and the development of training programs focused on forensic psychology; some of these were joint degree (JD/PhD) programs, while others were within existing clinical or social psychology programs. Several emerging roles for psychologists in the legal system are discussed: providing forensic clinical evaluations, delivering scientific expert witness testimony, creating “science translation” briefs, and working as a trial consultant. In recent years, research intended to provide courts with relevant and useful information has been especially prevalent in the areas of eyewitness memory, ways to improve clinical forensic evaluations, and issues involving children and adolescents. We conclude that the future of forensic psychology looks bright, as communication between leaders in law and forensic psychology appears to be increasing in both frequency and understanding.