You are here: Home / Archives for featured

Cruel and Unusual: Death Penalty Support in America at Lowest Levels in 40 Years

November 22, 2011 By Comments

This article describes the results of a recent Gallup Poll on death penalty support in the United States and reviews the history of the death penalty in America. International statistics are also provided, including a list of those countries that continue to use the death penalty as well as those that have abolished this form of punishment.

Recent Poll on Support for the Death Penalty in America

A recent Gallup Poll shows that support for the death penalty amongst Americans has reached a new low—the lowest it has been in the last 40 years. More than one-third of Americans (35%) now oppose the death penalty. This is the highest level of opposition that has been seen since March 1972—the year that the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty to be unconstitutional unless it was applied fairly.

Click here for the full article on the Gallup Poll

Evolution of the Death Penalty in the United States

Execution was an inherited part of American culture beginning before settlement of the colonies. The first recorded execution of an American settler took place in Virginia in 1608 when George Kendall was executed by firing squad for spying. Since that time, between 14,489 and 18,000 people have been executed in the United States under government authority.

In times before the formalization of the country under a single constitution, execution was a fairly common practice. Although crimes for which capital punishment was an option varied by locale, all colonies allowed for the death penalty at some point. For example, persons were given death sentences for suspected witchcraft activities, bestiality, “man stealing,” idolatry, and “cursing a parent” in the Massachusetts settlement. As the colonists fought for independence, execution was used a threat for desertion or treason. Finally, under the official government of the United States, allowance of the death penalty became a national standard. The Constitution set guidelines that permitted both federal and state executions.

Since 1776, the country has vacillated considerably in terms of consensus on death penalty policy. The ratification of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution in 1791 did not halt executions, but has since given rise to numerous challenges including current questions about execution methods. States such as Michigan have held as death penalty abolitionists since 1852, while others, such as Texas, execute more people in one year than other states have ever executed.

Execution in the Twentieth Century

By the twentieth century, execution was an accepted practice of the American criminal justice system. In fact, 1935 saw a greater number of capital sentences than any other year to date. In the mid-1900s, executions for crimes other than murder still occurred, but with infrequency. By the 1960s, views about the death penalty had changed, and the number of condemned persons had declined. In 1968, the Supreme Court ordered a moratorium so as to review death penalty issues.

Furman v. Georgia

The decision in the landmark case of Furman v. Georgia, consolidated with two other cases, briefly halted capital punishment in the United States. Setting the political landscape for this decision, public opinion with regard to the death penalty had shifted significantly since its inception. In 1966, support for the death penalty reached its lowest point in America. A Gallup poll taken months before the Furman ruling found death penalty supporters only marginally outnumbering opponents. William Henry Furman, a relatively uneducated African American man, shot and killed the resident of the dwelling he was attempting to burglarize. After being convicted of murder and sentenced to death, Furman appealed, citing conflicts between his sentence and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution; his appeal eventually being granted review by the Supreme Court. Rather than being a question of simple technicality, the appeal raised questions about the constitutionality of nationwide death penalty practices. On June 29, 1972, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Warren Burger, ruled five to four that the death penalty was unconstitutional. It was opined that sentencing was often random, and juries were empowered with too much discretion. Each justice seemed to have different reasons for his opinion, and all issued separate opinions, resulting in the longest ever decision. Under the decision, all currently condemned persons were required to be re-sentenced to a noncapital punishment with no possibility of reinstating previous death sentences.

Rather than providing an ultimate answer to the question of capital punishment, the Furman ruling seemed to energize and further entrench activists on both sides of the issue. Within a day of the ruling, five states had declared intention to draft death penalty legislation that qualified under the new guidelines. Legislators worked quickly to reenact capital punishment and, in 1975, more people were sentenced to death in the United States than in any previously recorded year.

Gregg v. Georgia

One of many states to engage in a reworking of sentencing standards related to the death penalty following Furman, Georgia developed a bifurcated system. Specifically, to avoid the randomness cited as unconstitutional, Georgia’s revised procedures required a guilt or innocence phase of the trial for potential capital cases followed by a second phase wherein aggravating conditions must be proved and mitigating factors presented to jurors and/or judges. Under these guidelines, Troy Gregg was convicted of two counts of murder with the aggravating factor of armed robbery. He appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Gregg v. Georgia (1976) (and two other cases handed down simultaneously) the Supreme Court held that the death penalty was not, in and of itself, unconstitutional nor in conflict with evolving standards of decency, but rather an embedded part of the American justice system. So long as practices were not arbitrary, but instead were part of set criteria for determining sentencing, the court determined death penalty practices to be constitutional. In addition, it was required that potential capital crimes be narrowly defined, that a Supreme Court appeal be provided, and that mitigation be allowed. In sum, this decision clearly allowed for the sentencing and carrying out of executions.

Within six months of death penalty reinstatement, Gary Gilmore was legally executed in Utah. Since that time, additional challenges have been raised that have provided more guidance regarding capital punishment. For example, Coker v. Georgia (1977) determined that the crime of raping an adult could not be sanctioned with the death penalty.

Modern Day Methods

Following the pattern of the Supreme Court, some states have examined fairness issues and temporarily halted capital sentencing, only to have execution reinstated following a change in leadership. Currently, 38 states, the federal government, and the U.S. Military have some form of capital punishment. Modern-day methods of execution include lethal injection, electrocution, hanging, the firing squad, and the gas chamber. In addition to reinstating the practice of execution, the Gregg decision appears to have allowed for more frequent legal dialogue on the topic of capital punishment. Future dangerousness, race, and definition of aggravating factors, among other issues, have been addressed by the courts.

The Issue of Age

One area in which the courts have set limits on the death penalty is with regard to age. In Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988) and Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), both of which were ultimately heard by the Supreme Court, age at the time of the offense was considered in determining whether the death penalty could be imposed. In Stanford, the appellate was over age 17 at the time of the crime, and the court affirmed imposition of the death penalty. Thompson on the other hand, was only 15 when his crime was committed, and the court deter- mined that his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment. Until 2005 the death penalty was not pursued when defendants were under 16 years of age at the time of the offense.

Relatively recently, the Supreme Court increased the age at which a person can be sanctioned with capital punishment. At the age of 17, Christopher Simmons plotted with two younger friends to kidnap and murder a female victim. He and another person broke into her home, bound her, and threw her from a bridge, resulting in her death. He was found guilty and sentenced to death, and the case was eventually heard by the Supreme Court. In Roper v. Simmons (2005) the court cited behavioral science literature finding that adolescents do not have the same level of maturity as adults and are more likely to behave impulsively. More importantly, the court considered a “national consensus” argument that involved the fact that only three states had executed an offender who was a juvenile at the time of the crime within the last decade. Finally, the court reviewed the positions of the international community, a minority of whom allow for the execution of minors. As such, the court set the standard for consideration of capital punishment at the age of 18 at the time of the offense.

The Issue of Mental Retardation or Developmental Disability

In addition to exploring the question of age, courts and legislators have reviewed mental status issues and their relevance to criminal sanctions. In Penry v. Lynaugh (1989) the Supreme Court determined that the execution of mentally retarded offenders was not specifically banned. More recently, in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the court reversed its earlier decision. In this case, Darryl Atkins and an accomplice were convicted of abducting, robbing, and killing a male victim. Despite Atkins’ documented IQ of 59, he was sentenced to death. Again, the Supreme Court cited the “national consensus” position, noting that the execution of mentally retarded individuals was not supported by state statutes and practices. In addition, it was held that the purported purposes of the death penalty, retribution and deterrence, were not satisfied by executing mentally retarded persons. As such, execution of these individuals was found to be in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court allowed for further review of this question as criteria for the determination of mental retardation were not specified.

The Issue of Mental Illness

Related to the issue of executing mentally retarded individuals is the issue of executing mentally ill individuals. Accepted standards of practice exist to ensure mentally ill persons are competent to stand trial and to determine whether an individual should be held criminally responsible for a given behavior. In Ford v. Wainwright (1986), the Supreme Court addressed whether mentally ill persons who have been sentenced to death should be executed. The court held that, under the Eighth Amendment, it was not acceptable to carry out a death sentence against a person so “insane” as not to understand the nature or purpose of the punishment (e.g., the punishment of death or its link to the commission of the crime). This ruling falls far short of exempting mentally ill individuals from execution. It appears likely, however, that further legal discourse on the topic is on the horizon.

Capital Punishment in the International Community

International developments within the last 20 years or so have produced a clear, strong trend away from capital punishment. The number of countries that have abolished the death penalty is at an all-time high and the international community has called upon those countries that still use the death penalty to sharply curtail its use. In addition, international agreements have expressed a strong preference for an end to all executions.

As of December, 2000, the number of countries that had abolished the death penalty for all crimes, whether in peacetime or wartime, totaled 76 with an additional 11 countries abolishing the death penalty for ordinary crimes in peacetime, and an additional 36 countries being considered de facto abolitionist as they had not executed anyone within the last 10 years. Thus, 37 percent (71 countries) of the international community had retained the death penalty as of the end of 2000, a significant decrease from the 56 percent that had retained the death penalty as of 1988 and the 47 percent that had retained it as of the end of 1995.

With respect to the number of executions that take place, China leads the world in overall number of executions. For the period 1994–1998, China executed a total of 12, 338 people (although some Chinese scholars estimate that the true number may be a lot higher); Iran executed the second highest number, with 505 executions; Saudi Arabia executed 465 people; Ukraine and Turkmenistan executed 389 and 373 people, respectively, although executions ceased during 1997 for both countries. The United States was sixth highest for that same period with 274 individuals being executed (93 of these in Texas). When the estimated annual rate per million population is examined for this same time period, Turkmenistan leads the international community with 14.92 people per million being executed annually, followed closely by Singapore with 13.93 people per million being executed annually; Saudi Arabia executed 4.65 people per million annually; and Belarus executed 3.20 people per million annually. China, although having the highest number of executions, executed 2.01 people per million annually and the United States was far lower at 0.20 people per million executed annually during that time period.

Recently, China has taken steps to respond to domestic and international criticism regarding its extensive use of capital punishment in an effort to reduce the high rate of executions. On October 30, 2006, China adopted new rules requiring that, as of January 1, 2007, all death sentences be reviewed by the Supreme People’s Court. The National People’s Congress, China’s legislature, approved this amendment, which restores a power that was stripped from the Supreme Court in 1983, in an effort to reduce the widespread and arbitrary use of the death penalty. China had been facing increasing criticism over the last few years after a number of executed individuals had later been proved innocent.

Countries that have Abolished the Death Penalty for All Crimes (n = 76)

Andorra, Angola, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d”Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kiribati, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marion, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Slo- vak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vatican City State, Venezuela

Countries that have Abolished the Death Penalty for Ordinary Crimes in Peacetime (n = 11)

Albania, Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Cyprus, El Salvador, Fiji, Israel, Latvia, Mexico, Peru

Countries Considered to be de facto Abolishionist with no Executions in 10 Years or More  (n = 36)

Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chile, Congo (Republic), Dominica, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Jamaica, Laos, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Samoa, Yugoslavia

Countries that still use the Death Penalty (n = 71)

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo (Democratic Republic), Cuba, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mongolia, Morocco, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwan- da, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe


Portions of this article were excerpted from: McLearen, A. M., & Zapf, P. A. (2007). The death penalty: A brief review of historical roots and current practices relevant to the mental health practitioner (pp. 295-319). In R. K. Ax & T. J. Fagan (Eds.), Corrections, mental health, and social policy. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Image courtesy of crimeanddeviance.com

Filed Under: Featured, Forensic & Clinical Psychology, Professional Info, Resources Tagged With: , ,

Extreme or Insane: When do Extreme Beliefs become Delusional?

August 1, 2011 By Comments

cheap viagra pills

8/breivik.jpg” alt=”" width=”320″ height=”180″ />

When are extreme beliefs considered delusional? This article discusses extreme beliefs and delusions, with specific reference to Anders Behring Breivik, his manifesto, and the gun and bomb rampage that left 76 dead in Norway.

Anders Behring Breivik’s Massacre

Unless you have been living under a rock for the last week you know that Anders Behring Breivik went on a gun and bomb rampage, killing 76 people in Norway. Just prior to the massacre, he released a 1518-page Manifesto entitled, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. Although it has not been independently verified that this manifesto was actually written by Breivik, it appears fairly clear that this is, in fact, the case.

Having obtained this manifesto (and apparently having nothing better to do than to read through it), I am struck by the blurred line between extremist beliefs and delusions. A delusion is a strongly held belief that is not substantiated in reality. Delusional individuals cling to their delusional beliefs, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. But what about someone like Breivik who has such deeply held extremist beliefs? When are extremist beliefs considered delusional?

Breivik’s Manifesto

Breivik’s manifesto is full of extremist right-wing ideology (for lack of a better descriptor). The first 838 pages of the manifesto are a collection of Breivik’s own essays on world history as well as writings, blog posts, and commentary that he obtained from various (mainly) online sources. In essence, the bulk of the manifesto presents a re-writing of history through the eyes of Breivik, with various sources being cited as examples or evidence for Breivik’s point of view.

Breivik’s primary thesis is that most of the world has become too liberal in its views and actions and that “Political Correctness,” which Breivik uses as a catchall term to refer to multiculturalism, feminism, Marxism, and other leftist (for lack of a better, all-encompassing term) movements or political viewpoints must come to an end. The manifesto contains numerous pieces of “evidence” to buttress Breivik’s views (which all appear to be tainted by a pervasive hatred of Islam and his, arguably irrational, fear that Islam will take over the world), including declining birthrates in non-Islam nations, and quotes from various books, media articles, publications, and world leaders.

Although a good portion of the manifesto appears to be excerpts from the published works of various well-known authors (from a variety of professional backgrounds) as well as blog posts from right-wing commentators, the sections that appear to have been written by Breivik are well written and appear to show linear reasoning. Although the manifesto, as a whole, could be described as rambling, since it contains so many varied pieces of “evidence” to back Breivik’s political views, each of the manifesto’s sections appear to be quite logical and linear.

On page 839 of the manifesto, Breivik begins a section on “Planning the operation.” This section goes into very explicit detail about how to plan and execute an operation as a “self sufficient Justiciar Knight sleeper cell” (Breivik’s description of his own role; p. 846). Breivik appears to have been obsessive about the details of the operation and the minutiae involved in planning his attack. The manifesto contains specific and detailed information about obtaining weapons, building body armor, obtaining funding and credit (along with specific details about how to apply for multiple credit cards), diversifying risk, staying motivated, physical preparation (including diet, fitness, training, and how to obtain and use steroids), obtaining and storing equipment, what to use as an alibi, how to buttress your alibi, how to avoid apprehension, and how to apply “deceptive means in urban guerrilla warfare,” among others. The manifesto also contains list of primary targets, a classification system for various levels of traitors (Category A, B, C, & D), and estimates of how many “traitors” exist in the various countries in Western Europe.

Breivik refers to himself as a Justiciar Knight and states, “A Justiciar Knight is not only a valorous resistance fighter, a one man army; he is a one man marketing agency as well. We are selling the promise of a better future for our people and our children. Resistance fighters are in many ways sales representatives. They are marketers and ambassadors to not only their specific organisations and movements but to the future we wish to create…When we blow up a building full of category A and B traitors it is not only for the purpose of killing. An important part of the operation is to force awareness of our movement and our ideology. The ideology we represent is the product we want to sell to the European people” (p. 1065). The manifesto then goes on to discuss sales and marketing techniques, as well as how to prepare for a photo shoot.

On page 1111 of the manifesto, Breivik presents a section on “Finding the right defence attorney/legal counsel for your trial,” which includes how to brief the defence attorney with respect to the cause. This section appears to illustrate the extent of Breivik’s beliefs about his role:

The candidate [the defence attorney] must be explaining [sic] that this trial is not about you but about the future of Europe. Your participation in the trial is merely a formality and a Justiciar Knight expects no mercy/leniency whatsoever, as we offer no mercy/leniency to our enemies. The candidate must be informed that the purpose of your defence is not to ensure the lowest possible sentence but rather to further the cause of saving Europe from Marxism and the subsequent manifestations (Islamisation etc.) which is the cause of the PCCTS, Knights Templar).

The later sections of the manifesto present Breivik’s views on “race-mixing” and the “Nordic ideal.” A series of plans are laid out as to how to create a “monocultural” civilization, including the use of artificial wombs, “outsourced breeding,” “surrogate” families to preserve the Nordic genotype.

Recruiting for, building, and mobilizing a national and pan-European patriotic resistance movement, utilizing Facebook and other social media as a platform to consolidate and grow this movement, is then set out in the later parts of the manifesto. A plan for developing a global military alliance and for dividing up the continents into a “New Europe” and a “New Middle East” is also detailed.

Extremist Beliefs & Delusions

While much of Breivik’s manifesto is a re-telling of some aspects of world history through the eyes of someone whose political beliefs can only be described as extremist (Breivik self describes as anti-cultural Marxism), where is the line drawn between extreme beliefs and delusional beliefs?

For me, I suppose, the tipping point occurs somewhere in Breivik’s manifesto around his discussion of the Knights Templar and his beliefs about being a part of a “National and pan-European Patriotic Resistance Movement.” Until this point in the manifesto, the beliefs presented appear to be, for the most part, an extreme conservative (politically right-wing) account of actual events that took place in the world’s history. Although others might disagree with Breivik’s take on these matters, the beliefs would not be classified as delusional. Numerous examples abound of individuals having their own perspective on world, national, or political events that have taken place: Not everyone is expected to share the same viewpoint or opinion about a particular event. Indeed, history is ripe with examples of differing views of the same event.

Delusional beliefs are those that are clearly false and not based in reality. In addition, these beliefs persist even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Breivik refers to himself as the “Justiciar Knight Commander for Knights Templar Europe and one of several leaders of the National and pan-European Patriotic Resistance Movement.” It is this belief that crosses the line from extreme to delusional. If Breivik truly believes (and he certainly appears to) that he is a Justiciar Knight Commander whose mission it is to lead a resistance movement, and no corroborating evidence for this can be found, he has then crossed the line from extremist beliefs to delusion.

Blurry Lines between Myth and Reality of Knights Templar

A recent CNN blog post by Libby Lewis talks about the blurred line between myth and reality of the Knights Templar.

As is clear from the blog post and corresponding radio broadcast (“A Perfect Knight”), Breivik may be developing his own reality with respect to the Knights Templar.

Time will Tell

At this point, only time will tell whether Breivik’s extreme beliefs are, in fact, delusional. Norwegian authorities continue to search for evidence that corroborates Breivik’s story. We will all continue to watch this developing story with interest.

For more information on delusions and insanity, please see the next post.

Photo courtesy of CNN.com

Filed Under: Featured, Forensic & Clinical Psychology Tagged With:

Casey Anthony is Innocent

June 7, 2011 By

Along with half the nation, I have been watching the evidence presented in the Casey Anthony trial with interest…and horror. This case is incredibly intriguing and even more heartbreaking. As a forensic psychologist, I have had more than my fair share of opportunities to work with some disturbed individuals. I’ve conducted thousands of evaluations of individuals who have been charged with heinous and serious (as well as some not so serious) crimes. My evaluations always get me thinking about the nature of human behavior and our motives for engaging in certain types of behaviors. The behaviors in which an individual engages are a product of the collection of experiences that an individual has had throughout his or her life in conjunction with the biological make-up of that individual within the context of the parameters of one’s environment. Thus, human behavior is a result of the complex interplay between nature and nurture; personality and biology; individual and situational factors. As such, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint the exact reasons why an individual would engage in a particular behavior. Yet, it is also human nature to search for explanations, especially when the behavior is so incomprehensible to a majority of others. So what is it about Casey Anthony that stands out and makes us so intrigued? And what could possibly explain her behaviors?

Imaginary Friends, Lies, and Deceit

It appears, from the evidence that has been presented thus far, that Casey Anthony has a penchant for making up imaginary friends. No less than 10 “friends” have been called upon by Casey Anthony to provide corroboration to her stories and explanations. The problem is that when authorities search for these friends, they are unable to locate them. Of course, the one person who could shed light on much of the information or misinformation supplied by Casey Anthony in this case is her former nanny-Zanny, who, as it turns out, is also imaginary (well, at least this appears to be an accurate assumption given that authorities have not been able to locate this individual and there has been no trace of her found in Casey Anthony’s personal computer, cell phone, camera, etc.). Why would someone make up friends? Perhaps the simplest explanation is that this is a relatively easy way to explain, account for, or provide an alibi for one’s behavior. Children do it but adults rarely do. So why would Casey Anthony make up people to help account for her own actions? And why would she do this for a period of years dating back to before her daughter was last seen?

And what about the pathological lying? This post is being written more than 2 weeks into the trial and a vast amount of evidence has been presented regarding the numerous lies that Casey Anthony has told. She lied to her parents about her whereabouts for a period of 31 days, between the time that Caylee was last seen by her grandparents and the day that Cindy Anthony (Casey’s mother) called the police to report Caylee missing. She repeatedly lied to her parents, other family members, and friends even while she was in custody and Caylee had not yet been found. She lied about having a job, lied about having a nanny, lied about not knowing where Caylee was (or at least that she did not know that Caylee was deceased). Is she also lying about aspects of her defense…such as being abused by her father?…that Caylee drowned?…that her father and her covered up Caylee’s drowning death?

Stoicism, Lack of Emotion, Psychopathy

Perhaps one of the most intriguing things about Casey Anthony is the lack of any real emotion, especially during times of extreme emotion from others. Watching the video clips of the trial, it is abundantly clear that Casey Anthony sits stone-faced for much of the time. She appears to become upset and emotional when she sees photos of herself being emotional but not so much when she watches her mother break down on the stand or her family or friends talk about or describe her deceased daughter, Caylee. Even before the trial, which, granted, is taking place years after the emotionally laden events took place, Casey can be seen in jailhouse video talking with her parents in an unemotional, perhaps detached way. The only real emotions that she appears to express are anger and perhaps frustration. What is it about Casey Anthony that allows her to remain so emotionless during what one can only assume is the most emotional time of her life?

What about the fact that during the 31 days between when Caylee was last seen by her grandparents and the day that Cindy Anthony called police to report her granddaughter missing Casey Anthony was living her life as per usual…going out to bars and nightclubs, partying, participating in “hot body” contests, and not mentioning to her friends (the non-imaginary ones) that her daughter was missing. What is it about Casey Anthony that allowed her to carry on as usual without displaying any obvious emotional distress to those around her?

Narcissism

Another characteristic that stands out for me is that Casey Anthony does not come across as caring about others nearly as much as she cares about herself. She appears to become emotionally upset only when something has a direct impact on her as opposed to anyone else. In the released jailhouse videos Casey Anthony can be seen blasting her parents when they insist on asking Casey whether she can tell them anything about Caylee or her disappearance. Casey talks about how difficult things are for her being locked up without any regard to how horrifying life must be for her parents, who have a daughter in jail and who are frantically searching for their granddaughter (while, one can only imagine, praying that their own daughter was not involved in their granddaughter’s disappearance). Casey becomes agitated when pressed for information about her daughter and reverts to feeling sorry for herself because she is locked up. Casey’s narcissism is all too evident in the numerous texts and email messages that have been released, showing her primary interest in her own welfare and happiness and little regard for others, especially her parents. What is it about Casey Anthony that prevents her from being able to take the perspective of others or to show care or concern for those around her?

Clinical Psychology – Forensic Psychology – Mothers Who Kill

So what could account for Casey Anthony’s behavior? As a clinical and forensic psychologist, a few different things come to mind when I think about the types of behaviors in which Casey Anthony has engaged. When I think about the types of mental disorders that might account for a

mother killing her chil

d (please don’t misunderstand, I am not saying that Casey Anthony killed her child nor am I saying that these mental disorders would render an individual not criminally responsible for killing a child…those are legal issues and legal decisions to be made) a few come easily to mind.

Psychosis

The most common type of mental disorder found in mothers who kill their children is some form of psychosis. Psychotic disorders are thought disorders that involve symptoms that render a person unable to think in a rational manner, unable to accurately process sensory information, or unable to remain in contact with reality. Hallucinations or delusions are common symptoms that affect individuals with Schizophrenia, Delusional Disorder, or other types of psychoses. Individuals with psychotic disorders process information differently than those without psychotic disorders. Paranoid or delusional belief systems interfere with accurate information processing and result in irrational behaviors. From the available evidence, Casey Anthony does not appear to show any signs or symptoms of a psychotic disorder.

Major Depression

Some women who kill their children do so as a result of severe depression. In some situations severely depressed individuals may also show evidence of psychosis. Severe depression results in a lack of hope about the future, and may result in irrational thinking. In many instances, severely depressed women who kill their children wish to kill themselves but believe that leaving their children without a mother would be detrimental to the children and so they end up killing their children as a means of protecting them from being left behind. From the available evidence, Casey Anthony does not appear to show any signs of severe depression.

Mania

A manic episode is defined by a distinct period during which there is an abnormally and persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable mood that lasts at least 1 week. Bipolar disorder (formerly known as manic depression) is characterized by intermittent periods of mania and depression. Mania, whether a manic episode alone or as part of Bipolar Disorder, involves symptoms such as inflated self-esteem or grandiosity, decreased need for sleep, pressured speech, flight of ideas, distractibility, or excessive involvement in pleasurable activities. From the available evidence, it appears that Casey Anthony’s behavior may some elements of mania; however, because these do not appear to have been encapsulated in a particular period of time, it appears that these might be better explained by a personality disorder.

Borderline Personality Disorder

Borderline Personality Disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affect in which marked impulsivity is a feature. Individuals with borderline personality disorder show a pattern of unstable and intense relationships, wherein they alternate between idealizing and devaluing others. The impulsivity that is characteristic of this disorder can be self-damaging, such as when individuals with borderline personality disorder engage in reckless or unsafe behaviors (including reckless driving, binge eating, unsafe sex, substance abuse, self-mutilation, or suicidal gestures). Feelings of depression, loneliness, emptiness, and despair are not uncommon.  Borderline personality disorder is more common in individuals who have histories of childhood abuse, abandonment, and inconsistent attachments to caregivers as well as those with a family history of the disorder. There are aspects of Casey Anthony’s behavior that suggest she has some elements of this disorder; however, these may be better explained by another personality disorder, such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy that begins in early adulthood and is present in a variety of contexts. Individuals with this disorder often show a need for constant attention and admiration, with an expectation that others will cater them to and that they will be given whatever they desire with little concern about the desires of others. These individuals use others to meet their own needs without concern for the needs of others and are often described as emotionally cold and having a lack of reciprocal interest in others. Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder tend to use others for their own personal gain and are able to dispose of others when they are no longer useful. They tend to blame problems in their lives on the inadequacies of others and have difficulty taking personal responsibility for their actions. The available evidence presented in Casey Anthony’s case certainly appears consistent with narcissistic personality disorder in that she appears to be primarily interested in her own welfare and happiness, appears to have little regard for others, and appears to be willing to go to great lengths to escape consequences or punishment.

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Antisocial Personality Disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. Deceit and manipulation are central features of this personality disorder. Individuals with antisocial personality disorder may repeatedly lie, use an alias, con others or malinger; impulsivity may be manifested by a failure to plan ahead and decisions are often made on the spur of the moment, without forethought, and without consideration for the consequences to self or others. Individuals with antisocial personality disorder tend to be consistently and extremely irresponsible, indicated by abandonment of employment or repeated unexplained absences from work; show financial irresponsibility; minimize the harmful consequences of their actions; and be indifferent to the feelings of others or show little remorse for the consequences of their actions. The available evidence presented in Casey Anthony’s case certainly appears consistent with antisocial personality disorder.

Casey Anthony is Innocent

Casey Antony is innocent until proven guilty but she is really not giving us much to go on, even if we wanted to believe that she is innocent. Her lies and deceit have caused no end of sorrow for her parents and no rest for anyone involved with the case. Her behavior is undoubtedly the result of a complex interplay between her personality, her biology, her environment, and her cumulative experiences. We will never be able to pinpoint the exact reasons for her behaviors but every bit of evidence presented gives us a little more insight into her psyche, however heartbreaking it may be. My thoughts are with her parents during this difficult time…

zp8497586rq
zp8497586rq
Filed Under: Forensic & Clinical Psychology Tagged With:

“Craziness” Ensues After Competency Determination in Jared Lee Loughner Case

May 27, 2011 By Comments

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Jared Lee Loughner is incompetent to stand trial for the January mass shooting at a Safeway in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people and wounded 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Since then, “craziness” (if you’ll pardon the colloquialism) has ensued, with a number of reporters calling to find out more about what exactly this means. I like talking to reporters and will always make time in my schedule to answer their questions because I believe it is important to share accurate, high-quality information (which is also the primary reason why I write for this website). So, what exactly does it mean when someone is incompetent to stand trial and how is this different from the insanity defense?

Criminal Psychology – Forensic Mental Health – Mental Health Disorders

There is a fundamental right that all individuals have to be a present and active participant in any criminal court proceedings against them. This means that we all have the right to be physically, as well as mentally, present at a trial against us. Various legal commentators have delineated the reasons for this right, including: to safeguard the accuracy of any criminal adjudication; to guarantee a fair trial; to preserve the dignity and integrity of the legal process; and to be certain that the defendant, if found guilty, knows why he is being punished.

Two of the reporters I spoke with who were kind enough to send links to their articles were Jeremy Singer-Vine of Slate Magazine and Sabriya Rice of CNN Health (see also David Nakamura’s article in The Washington Post).

Upon reading some of the comments that readers have posted about these articles, it became clear to me just how many people are unclear about the distinction between competency and insanity.

Competency to Stand Trial

There is a long history of competency doctrine going back to at least the 17th century. The purpose of the competency doctrine is to ensure both the protection of the defendant as well as the protection of the state’s interest in fair and reliable proceedings. The standard for competency to stand trial in the United States was set out in Dusky v. United States (1960), and elucidated in subsequent case law (see Weiter v. Settle, 1961; Drope v. Missouri, 1975; and Godinez v. Moran, 1993).

In essence, in order to be considered competent to stand trial, a defendant must be able to factually understand the proceedings, rationally understand the proceedings (that is, apply the factual knowledge to his or her own case and show an appreciation of the personal importance and consequences of the proceedings), engage in rational decision making (that is, make decisions that are not based on delusional or irrational beliefs), and assist counsel in his or her defense. If a defendant is unable to perform one or more of these basic abilities, and the cause of this inability is mental disorder or cognitive impairment, he or she is considered to be incompetent to stand trial.

The competency determination is concerned with the defendant’s present mental state—not his or her mental state at the time of the crime (that would be a question of legal insanity). If a defendant is deemed incompetent to stand trial, he or she is sent to a state hospital or a forensic facility for competency restoration (treatment). Once he or she has been restored to competency, the proceedings resume. Thus, a determination of incompetence simply delays the trial process until the defendant can be mentally present.

Quick Facts about Competency to Stand Trial

  • Approximately 60,000 individuals are evaluated with respect to competency to stand trial every year in the United States
  • Rates of incompetence vary by jurisdiction but are typically about 20% (meaning that 20% of those who are evaluated are found incompetent)
  • Most defendants (90% or so) are restored to competency
  • About 75% of defendants are restored to competency within about 6 months
  • The 2 most difficult groups to restore to competency are those who have irremediable cognitive disorders (such as mental retardation) and chronically psychotic defendant with lengthy histories of inpatient hospitalization

Insanity – Criminal Responsibility – Mental State at the time of Offense

Insanity, or Mental State at the time of the Offense (MSO), concerns the issue of criminal responsibility (whether someone should be held criminally accountable for his or her actions). Most states have statutes that allow a defendant to present a mental state defense. Although the legal standard for insanity varies by jurisdiction, the two most common standards are the M’Naughten Standard and the American Law Institute Standard.

In essence, to be considered insane (or not criminally responsible for one’s actions) it must be shown that the defendant did not have the capacity to understand the nature or quality of his or her actions (that is, did not know what they were doing) or did not have the capacity to know what he or she was doing was wrong. Of course, just like with incompetence, the cause for the incapacity must be a mental illness or cognitive impairment.

Individuals who are found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI), or not criminally responsible for their actions, are typically sent to a secure forensic facility for treatment rather than to a correctional facility. The length of detention at the forensic facility varies according to the severity of the mental illness and the risk that the individual poses to the public. It is not uncommon for an individual to be detained in the forensic hospital for longer than he or she would have been sentenced had a guilty verdict been rendered.

Quick Facts about the Insanity Defense

  • The insanity defense is raised in approximately one-tenth of 1% of all felony cases (that is, in about 1 out of every 1000 cases)
  • The insanity defense is successful in about 25% of the cases in which it is raised
  • The insanity defense is not often raised and, when it is, it is not often successful; however, the public grossly overestimates both the frequency and the success of insanity pleas

Commentary on the Jared Lee Loughner Case

There were a number of “red flags” raised in the Jared Lee Loughner case that were indicative of this man’s mental difficulties. Shortly after the incident occurred, Mr. Loughner was described by others as being “creepy” and “disturbed” and as going on politically motivated “rants” wherein he would spew paranoid-like and delusional ideas.  He had recently been asked to leave the college he was attending for various behavioral issues and not allowed to return until he had undergone a mental health evaluation. These types of indicators, coupled with the fact that Mr. Loughner is in his early 20s, raise significant concern about his mental health. Men, if they are to have a psychotic break, will typically have the first break in their late teens or early 20s (women have their first psychotic break much later). By all accounts, Mr. Loughner appears to be an individual who is clearly struggling with his mental health.

It seems that there are a number of people who don’t understand how significantly a serious mental illness can impact one’s life. Some of the commentary that I have read includes comments that appear to point blame at Mr. Loughner, at his parents, at school officials. The simple fact of the matter here is that Mr. Loughner suffers from a severe and chronic mental illness that can have a devastating impact on his life as well as the lives of those closest to him. This is not a time for pointing fingers and levying blame…this is a time to ensure that Mr. Loughner gets the treatment he needs and that the families of those whose lives he destroyed or damaged get the help that they need.

I am so impressed with Mary Reed’s recent statement about Jared Lee Loughner’s incompetency determination. Having been one of the victims who was injured by Mr. Loughner, Ms. Reed is able to understand the severity of Mr. Loughner’s mental illness and the need for him to receive treatment and be restored to competence before being able to proceed with his trial.

At this point in time, there is no reason to believe that Mr. Loughner will not be restored to competency. Most individuals are restorable and so there is a very good chance that he will eventually be deemed competent and will proceed to trial. If and when he is restored, it should not be a surprise if he raises a mental state defense. Mr. Loughner is being treated at the Federal Medical Facility in Springfield, Missouri, where he will receive high quality care by competent professionals.

Resources for Professionals

Best Practices Series: Evaluation of Criminal Responsibility

Best Practices Series: Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial

Filed Under: Featured, Forensic & Clinical Psychology, Professional Info Tagged With:

10 Ways to Increase your Chances of Getting into Graduate School

May 5, 2011 By Comments

There is no doubt that being offered admission into a graduate program in clinical psychology is a competitive endeavor. The high number of applicants and the low number of admissions makes admission a rare event. Most programs will seek the highest-quality applicants, making this a competitive event for both the student-applicants as well as the admitting programs. It is typical for a single program to receive about 200 or so applications for between 5 and 8 admission spots, making the chances of being admitted less than 5%. This article describes a few of the ways in which you can increase your chances of being offered admission into a graduate program. The focus here is on doctoral programs in clinical psychology but the advice can be applied to any type of graduate program.

Start Early

The earlier you know that you want to go on to receive a graduate degree in clinical psychology the better. Undergraduate students should seek out various opportunities beginning in the first or second year of their degree programs. If you are one of the lucky ones who knows what you would like to do upon completion of your undergraduate degree, good for you! Get started early! Inquire as to whether your undergraduate degree program has an Honors degree or other “track” for those interested in going on to graduate school and take advantage of this opportunity. Typically, an honors degree will involved advanced coursework as well as a research project. Both of these will help to prepare you for the rigors of graduate school.

Of course, many students will not discover their interest in psychology until later in their undergraduate degree programs. As soon as you know that you would like to go on to graduate school, you need to get started on this process. The first thing you will want to do is talk to the faculty in your department and find out who is working on what research. It is very important that you start to know the faculty members in your department and find someone with whom you can work. This experience will be invaluable.

Get Involved in Research

There are two types of doctoral degree programs to which you might apply—a PhD program or a PsyD program. There are more PhD programs available but these tend to be much more competitive than the PsyD programs. The PhD degree is a research degree and so you will need to complete a dissertation to obtain your doctoral degree. Although PsyD programs tend, in general, to be less research-oriented, this does not mean that you will be able to make it through a doctoral program (any doctoral program) without having to do some research. Research will be an inevitable part of your doctoral program and so individuals who have research experience are going to be more competitive in their applications than are those without research experience. If there is only one thing that you do as an undergraduate to prepare for graduate school, it should be getting involved in research!

Working with a faculty member and getting involved in their research gives you at least three distinct advantages when applying to graduate school. First, it allows you to begin to understand how to conduct research, which is important to graduate programs. Second, it gives you something to talk about in your graduate school interviews (most clinical programs will conduct an interview of their top candidates). Third, it allows you the opportunity to work closely with a faculty member who will then be able to provide you with a strong letter of recommendation.

Many times students will say that they did not get involved in research because there was no one on faculty who was interested in what the student wanted to study. This is not the way to go about this process. Students should get involved in research of any type. Most psychology departments do not have forensic psychologists on faculty but this should not stop students who are interested in pursuing forensic psychology from getting involved in research while an undergraduate. No graduate program is going to say, “Well, she had research experience but it wasn’t in forensic psychology (or cognitive psychology, or neuropsychology, etc) so we didn’t offer her admission.” Graduate programs do not expect that students will have experience conducting the exact type of research that they would like to conduct while in graduate school. In fact, they know that most students will not. Simply getting involved in research while an undergraduate is what’s important!

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Doctoral Programs, Education & Training, Featured, Forensic & Clinical Psychology, Graduate, Masters Programs, Online Programs, Post Doctoral, Terminal Degree, Undergraduate Programs Tagged With: , ,

Politics and Incompetence: The Luke Wright Case

April 21, 2011 By Comments

In a recently concluded criminal case that took place in a Buffalo courtroom, 32-year-old Luke Wright was convicted of the brutal torture, rape and sodomy of his half-sister, 23-year-old Laura Cummings. Rape, sodomy with a broomstick, torture, incest between mother and son, brain damage from a baseball bat to the head…this case had it all. While this case is disturbing on many levels—the least of which is the fact that Luke and Laura’s mother, Eva Cummings, was sentenced to more than 50 years for brutally torturing, suffocating, and killing Laura—it raises the issue of the politics involved in high-profile cases with respect to finding a defendant competent to stand trial.

For a brief overview of the case, see the link below:

http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/laura-cummings-murder/article396513.ece

Mental Disability and Incompetence to Stand Trial

Luke Wright and Laura Cummings, by all accounts, were both mentally disabled. Testimony by Eva Cummings at the trial of her son, Luke, indicated that she believed Laura to be more intelligent than her son, Luke.

Despite the fact that both parties agreed that Luke Wright was mentally retarded, there were conflicting accounts between the prosecution and defense with respect to the degree of intellectual impairment involved. Intelligence testing conducted by the school district estimated Luke’s IQ to be as low as 52, which would put him at the 1st percentile for intellectual functioning (meaning that out of 100 randomly selected individuals, Luke would be considered more intelligent than 1 of them). The prosecution argued that Luke suffered from mild mental retardation, placing him at the 10th percentile for intellectual functioning (meaning that he would be considered more intelligent than 10 of 100 randomly selected individuals). Either way, Luke is still considered to be impaired in terms of his intellectual development.

Defense experts evaluated Luke with respect to his competence to stand trial and opined Luke to be incompetent to stand trial, indicating that he was unable to fully understand the nature of the charges against him and was unable to assist defense counsel in his case.

For a brief synopsis of the competence issues, please click the link below:

http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article395557.ece

In order to proceed with trial, a defendant must be competent. This is generally taken to mean that the defendant must be able to understand, both factually and rationally, the nature and object of the proceedings, and to assist defense counsel in the presentation of a defense. As a general rule, individuals with diagnoses of mental retardation are not automatically considered to be incompetent—the mental retardation or cognitive impairment must be linked to deficits in the functional abilities required of the defendant to stand trial, such as the ability to rationally or factually understand the nature of the charges, to understand the personal importance of the charges, to understand the nature of the proceedings, or to make rational decisions regarding some aspects of their defense (among others).

In the Luke Wright case, a well-known and well-respected forensic psychologist, Dr. Charles Ewing, testified that Luke was unable to understand the nature of the charges against him. Dr. Ewing opined that the fact that Luke was raised in a home where incest and inappropriate sexual relations occurred on a regular basis numbed him to the effects of sexual abuse. Far fetched? No, and certainly not for an individual with the type of cognitive impairment inherent in mental retardation.

Mentally retarded individuals have a tendency to be acquiescent and to go easily along with others. They also have a tendency to act impulsively and to agree with what others are saying, even though they may not understand what was said. Dr. Ewing testified that Luke Wright was unreliable and could not be trusted to provide an accurate or truthful report of what occurred. We know from research that these individuals will often be unable to provide a consistent and reliable narrative of events that occurred. We also know from research that individuals with the type of cognitive impairment inherent in mental retardation are more likely to provide false confessions and to confabulate when they do not know the answer to a question. Both of these issues appear to have been intrinsic to the Luke Wright case.

Oftentimes, the politics of high-profile cases and the desire to see someone held accountable for their behavior take precedence over the arguably more important issue of ensuring that defendants are capable of being more that just physically present in a courtroom. When this occurs, such as in this case, it is a travesty of justice.

Photo courtesy of buffalonews.com

Filed Under: Forensic & Clinical Psychology, Professional Info Tagged With: ,
« Older Posts