ABSTRACT
Forensic mental health assessments (FMHAs) are requested by the courts to assist in the sentencing process and can have a major impact upon the life of the person evaluated. Completing these assessments is a core competency for forensic psychologists. However, some FMHAs are undertaken by psychologists who have no forensic training. Despite this, there are no formalised Australian minimum standards to ensure reports are helpful to the courts and reflect sound evaluation methodologies. Drawing upon a critical review of the literature and recent research findings, we propose a 10-step decision-making model for pre-sentence evaluations of juveniles. Our model provides a framework for decision-making and highlights the key elements of an evaluation. The model provides a basis for developing practice guidelines and professional standards. The next step is to test the model in the field to determine its impact on the quality of psychological pre-sentence reports.
ABSTRACT
Psychological reports for use in court must be relevant to the legal issues in dispute, meet professional standards, and reflect evidence-based practice. Using the Delphi method, a high degree of consensus was found among Australian experts in the methodology and knowledge required for conducting forensic mental health assessment (FMHAs) and the content needed in pre-sentence reports. Consensus was absent in two areas, if a pre-sentence report should always include a risk-assessment; and the need for a model to guide the FMHA. Without a model it is difficult for practitioners to justify their decision-making process, and judicial officers have no mechanism to determine if the work provided to the court is of an acceptable standard. Future research should focus on developing a model for presentence reports that includes a decision-making process and minimum standards. Researchers also need to determine judicial officers' views on the helpfulness of presentence reports.
