An uncomfortable tension: Reconciling the principles of forensic psychology and cultural competency.

OBJECTIVE: State of Washington v. Sisouvanh (2012) was the first case in which an appellate court asserted the need for cultural competence in competency-to-stand-trial evaluations. A court reiterated this need in State of Washington v. Ortiz-Abrego (2017). Research in forensic psychology seldom addressed cultural considerations in pretrial evaluations until this past decade, but the growing body of literature pales in comparison to the work found in clinical and counseling psychology. Most of the current literature acknowledges the lack of professionally sanctioned practice guidelines and makes valuable suggestions regarding how to address cultural factors that are relevant to the requisite capacities of legal competency. Yet, none of this research addresses potential risks incurred by the evaluators who attempt to incorporate these suggestions into practice or acknowledges the possible incompatibility between forensic and cultural competency principles. HYPOTHESES: The authors posit there may be areas of incompatability, or tension, between the tenets of forensic psychology and cultural competency. METHOD: To examine this potential incompatibility, we reviewed legal cases with cultural implications, addressed recent developments regarding cultural "incompetence," and conducted an overview of cultural competency in clinical and forensic psychology. RESULTS: Comparing general principles of forensic psychology with those of cultural responsiveness and humility, we found that questions emerged regarding the potential philosophical conflicts as well as risks that may be incurred by individual evaluators in legal settings. CONCLUSIONS: The resultant dilemma sets the stage for pragmatic suggestions regarding communication, assessment, and diagnosis. Finally, we emphasize the need for sanctioned practice guidelines. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Forensic Competency Assessment with Digital Technologies.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: We review the application of videoconferencing (VC) to pretrial forensic assessments of competence to stand trial (CST). We summarize the benefits, legal considerations, and reliability of VC evaluations. Based on our experience with VC in forensic settings, we provide illustrations of challenges and recommendations regarding this capability to meet increasing demands for services. RECENT FINDINGS: CST evaluations are the most frequent type of forensic mental health assessment within the American legal system. VC can be a reliable method for conducting interviews with most defendants, including those with psychotic symptoms. Videoconferencing can improve the overall efficiency of evaluations while also improving the safety of the professionals involved with the competency evaluation. VC provides an opportunity to meet the increasing demand for evaluations and improve their efficiency. Forensic clinicians should become familiar with the uses of VC in delivering services so that VC is implemented ethically and effectively.