Walden FPSY 6300 Psychology and Law — Forensic Psychology MS Complete Study Guide

Instant Download Available!

We have a pre-done course guide for this exact course — download instantly and get ahead.

Week 1 distinguishes the forensic psychologist from the treating therapist. The treating therapist is an advocate for the patient and serves the patient's interests. The forensic psychologist is objective — an evaluator who serves the court and whose ultimate obligation is to the truth rather than to any particular outcome for the examinee. Greenberg and Shuman's 'irreconcilable roles' paper (2007) argues that treating therapists should not serve as forensic experts because the therapeutic relationship creates bias. APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (2013) define the ethical standards governing forensic practice. DB1 asks whether a treating therapist can ethically serve as a forensic expert — a classic debate in forensic psychology.

Key Deliverable: DB1: Forensic Ethics — Can a Treating Clinician Serve as a Forensic Expert? (250+ words, APA, 2 peer replies)

Week 2 covers the most frequently requested forensic evaluation in criminal court: competency to stand trial. The Dusky standard (Dusky v. United States, 1960 Supreme Court) requires that the defendant have both a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings AND the ability to assist counsel in their own defense. Two tools are most commonly used in competency evaluations at Walden's level: the MacCAT-CA (MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool — Criminal Adjudication, a semi-structured interview with three scales: understanding, reasoning, and appreciation) and the ECST-R (Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial — Revised, which includes the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Scales). Jackson v. Indiana (1972) limits indefinite commitment of incompetent defendants.

Key Deliverable: Competency Assessment Tool Comparison Paper (3-4 pages, APA, MacCAT-CA vs. ECST-R compared)

Week 3 examines the most controversial forensic evaluation: criminal responsibility. The major insanity standards in U.S. law: M'Naghten (1843 UK House of Lords — cognitive test: did the defendant know the nature of the act? Did they know it was wrong?), Irresistible Impulse test (adds a volitional prong — could the defendant control their behavior?), Durham Product Rule (1954 — the act was a 'product' of mental disease or defect; the broadest standard; largely abandoned), ALI/MPC standard (1962 Model Penal Code — both cognitive and volitional prongs; used in federal courts until Hinckley), and the Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act (1984 — post-Hinckley; restored cognitive M'Naghten standard; shifted burden of proof to the defendant by clear and convincing evidence).

Key Deliverable: Insanity Standard Comparison Paper (5-6 pages, APA, all major standards compared with case examples)

Week 4 midterm covers risk assessment — one of the most empirically demanding tasks in forensic psychology. Two primary approaches: Actuarial instruments (Violence Risk Appraisal Guide [VRAG], Static-99R for sexual offense recidivism) use numerical formulas based on empirically validated risk factors; they are more statistically accurate on average but do not account for individual variation. Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) tools (HCR-20v3 with 20 items: 10 Historical, 5 Clinical, 5 Risk Management; SAVRY for juvenile risk) combine actuarial research with clinical judgment; they incorporate dynamic risk factors and treatment response. Your 7-8 page midterm paper compares the HCR-20v3 and VRAG on theoretical foundations, psychometric properties, clinical utility, and concerns about racial bias in actuarial tools.

Key Deliverable: Midterm: Risk Assessment Instrument Comparison Paper (7-8 pages, APA, 8+ peer-reviewed sources) — due Sunday 11:59 PM ET

Week 5 applies decades of cognitive psychology research to the most common cause of wrongful convictions in the U.S. — eyewitness misidentification. Elizabeth Loftus's misinformation effect (1974) demonstrated that post-event information distorts the original memory trace. Weapon focus effect (attention narrows to the weapon, away from the perpetrator's face, reducing identification accuracy). Own-race bias (cross-race identifications are approximately 1.56 times more likely to be incorrect than same-race identifications). Lineup procedures: simultaneous (all photos presented at once — higher false positive rate due to relative judgment) vs. sequential (one at a time — reduces social comparison). Innocence Project data: eyewitness misidentification was present in 69% of the first 375 DNA exonerations in the U.S.

Key Deliverable: Eyewitness Psychology Research Paper (4 pages, APA, policy recommendations for police lineup procedures)

Week 6 examines the specialized considerations for child witnesses in forensic investigations. The NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) Protocol is the most rigorously researched forensic interview approach for children — studies consistently show that adherence to the protocol produces significantly more investigative information from children while minimizing suggestibility. Key components: ground rules phase (teaching the child to say 'I don't know' and to correct the interviewer), practice narratives (practicing open-ended recall on a neutral topic before the investigative topic), and open-ended prompting (avoiding yes/no questions). Developmental suggestibility decreases dramatically through middle childhood but remains significant for preschool-age children.

Key Deliverable: Child Forensic Interview Protocol Analysis (4 pages, APA, NICHD Protocol evaluation)

Week 7 covers the forensic psychologist's most visible role: expert witness. The Frye test (1923 — 'general acceptance' in the relevant scientific community) was replaced for federal courts by the Daubert standard (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993 — trial judge as 'gatekeeper'; four factors: has the theory been tested? Has it been peer reviewed? What is the known error rate? Is it generally accepted?). Kumho Tire (1999) extended Daubert to all expert testimony, including clinical psychology. A complete forensic evaluation report has 15 components per AFCC standards. Many forensic psychologists avoid offering 'ultimate opinions' (legal conclusions such as 'the defendant is incompetent' or 'the defendant is insane') because these usurp the role of the fact-finder.

Key Deliverable: Mock Forensic Evaluation Report (6-8 pages, professional forensic report format, court-ready)

Week 8 final is a comprehensive forensic evaluation for a simulated case file. You receive a multi-page case file including clinical history, police report, victim statements, prior mental health records, and school records. You must produce: (1) a formal forensic evaluation report covering competency to stand trial, criminal responsibility, and violence risk assessment; (2) a critical analysis of the ethical issues present in the case; and (3) a simulated cross-examination preparation document anticipating the opposing attorney's challenges to your conclusions. The Respondus-proctored final exam (90 minutes, 60 questions) tests all course concepts and case application skills.

Key Deliverable: Final Exam (Respondus, 90 min, 60 questions) + Comprehensive Forensic Evaluation Report + Ethical Analysis