How does evaluator empathy impact a forensic interview?

We used an experimental design to test the key concern that expressive empathy from evaluators during forensic interviews leads to more disclosure of misbehavior (e.g., stealing, breaking the law, manipulating others) from evaluees. In the context of a psychopathy assessment interview, evaluees (N = 94, 100% male, 57.4% Caucasian) interviewed by an evaluator using expressive empathy techniques were no more likely than those interviewed by an evaluator avoiding expressive empathy techniques to admit to past instances of misbehavior (d = .17, 95% CI [-.24, .57]). Instead, the use of expressive empathy techniques seemed to influence evaluator perceptions of the evaluees. Evaluators using expressive empathy rated evaluees as less psychopathic (d = -.52, 95% CI [-.93, -.11]), more conscientious (d = .72, 95% CI [.30, 1.13]), and as having engaged in less impression management (d = -.54, 95% CI [-.95, -.13]) than evaluators avoiding the use of expressive empathy. Put simply, when evaluators expressed empathy, it influenced the evaluator, not the evaluee. These findings suggest the need to expand professional discourse and research on empathy in forensic evaluations to better understand the possible effects of evaluator empathy on both evaluators and evaluees. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Guidelines for determining restorability of competency to stand trial and recommendations for involuntary treatment.

Over 50,000 defendants are referred for competency to stand trial evaluations each year in the United States (Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers, New York, NY: The Guildford Press; 2018). Approximately 20% of those individuals are found by courts to be incompetent and are referred for "restoration" or remediation (Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers, 4th edn. New York, NY: The Guildford Press; 2018; Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1991;19:63-9). The majority of those incompetent defendants meet criteria for psychotic illnesses (J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2007;35:34-43). Forensic mental health professionals frequently have such patients/defendants decline recommended treatment with psychotropic medication. For a significant minority of defendants diagnosed with psychotic disorders, treatment with medication is thought to be necessary to restore their competency to stand trial. Without psychiatric intervention to restore competency, defendants may be held for lengthy and costly hospitalizations while criminal proceedings are suspended. In these situations, clinicians are guided by the Supreme Court decision, Sell v. United States (2003). The Sell opinion describes several clinical issues courts must consider when determining whether a defendant can be treated involuntarily solely for the purpose of restoring his/her competency. This paper offers some guidance to clinicians and evaluators who are faced with making recommendations or decisions about involuntary treatment. Using a question and answer format, the authors discuss data that support a decision to request, or not request, court authorization for involuntary treatment. Specifically, eight questions are posed for forensic evaluators to consider in determining the prognosis or viability of successful treatment and restoration. Finally, a clinical vignette is also presented to highlight important factors to consider in Sell-related evaluations.