From posts to protection: Ethical considerations regarding forensic psychiatrists and a duty to warn based on social media.

Increasing use of social media in forensic mental health evaluations will lead to new challenges that must be resolved by forensic practitioners and the legal system. One such dilemma is the discovery of information that would typically trigger a legal duty and professional ethics obligation for mental health professionals to breach doctor-patient confidentiality to promote public safety and prevent harm to vulnerable third parties. Although the law and professional organizations offer clear guidance for practitioners in the treatment role, there is currently no clarity from the law or instruction from professional organizations on what mental health professionals should do if they discover such information during a confidential forensic evaluation. For example, a forensic evaluator may find evidence on social media of an evaluee's threats to seriously harm others, abuse of children and the elderly, or severely impaired driving. There are no clear guidelines for how a forensic psychiatrist should respond in these complicated situations. We review the legal concepts and historical evolution of confidentiality, privilege, and mandated reporter duties that forensic practitioners should consider in these legally ambiguous situations. Finally, we discuss ethics frameworks practitioners can implement to determine their most ethical course of action when faced with such dilemmas.

Forensic neurology: a distinct subspecialty at the intersection of neurology, neuroscience and law.

Neurological evidence is increasingly used in criminal cases to argue that a defendant is less responsible for their behaviour, is not competent to stand trial or should receive a reduced punishment for the crime. Unfortunately, neurologists are rarely involved in such cases despite having the expertise to help to inform these decisions in court. In this Perspective, we advocate for the development of 'forensic neurology', a subspecialty of neurology focused on using neurological clinical and scientific expertise to address legal questions for the criminal justice system. We review literature suggesting that the incidence of criminal behaviour is higher in people with certain neurological disorders than the general public and that undiagnosed neurological abnormalities are common in people who commit crimes. We discuss the need for forensic neurologists in criminal cases to provide an opinion on what neurological diagnoses are present, the resulting symptoms and ultimately whether the symptoms affect legal determinations such as criminal responsibility or competency.

Voluntary intoxication, homicide, and mens rea: Past, present, and future.

Voluntary, or intentional, acute intoxication does not qualify for an insanity defense. However, in many jurisdictions, voluntary intoxication can create a diminished capacity to form a specific intent necessary for a criminal offense. This is a type of mens rea defense. Homicide provides a clear example where the absence of a required specific intent can lead to a lesser included crime that does not require that specific intent. Thereby, a mens rea defense may lessen a first-degree murder charge to a lesser degree or even manslaughter, depending on the jurisdiction. After reviewing the history of mens rea defenses and voluntary intoxication, we performed a search of LexisNexis for state statutes and case law regulating the use of voluntary intoxication in mens rea defenses, focusing on homicide-related offenses. In this article, we compare the different approaches that have developed to address this complex issue. We discuss why knowledge of these different approaches is essential to the practicing forensic examiner in relevant jurisdictions and explore developing issues in the area.