Pence, Putin, Mbeki and Their HIV/AIDS-Related Crimes Against Humanity: Call for Social Justice and Behavioral Science Advocacy.

Indiana, a large rural state in the Midwestern United States, suffered the worst North American HIV outbreak among injection drug users in years. The Indiana state government under former Governor and current US Vice President Mike Pence fueled the HIV outbreak by prohibiting needle/syringe exchange and failed to take substantive action once the outbreak was identified. This failure in public health policy parallels the HIV epidemics driven by oppressive drug laws in current day Russia and is reminiscent of the anti-science AIDS denialism of 1999-2007 South Africa. The argument that Russian President Putin and former South African President Mbeki should be held accountable for their AIDS policies as crimes against humanity can be extended to Vice President Pence. Social and behavioral scientists have a responsibility to inform the public of HIV prevention realities and to advocate for evidence-based public health policies to prevent future outbreaks of HIV infection.

Psychosis and Substance Use: Implications for Conditional Release Readiness Evaluations.

In Foucha v. Louisiana (1992), the United States Supreme Court ruled that individuals adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) could not remain in a forensic hospital if they were no longer mentally ill and dangerous. Since this decision, a variety of important questions have arisen related to the insanity defense and what should happen to insanity acquittees post-adjudication. This article provides an analysis of clinical issues confronting forensic examiners when psychosis as a result of substance abuse is the underlying condition supporting an insanity defense. To accomplish this analysis, this article provides the reader with a review of literature showing the complex relationship between psychosis and substance abuse. Second, this article investigates how substance-induced psychosis may impact both insanity opinions and subsequent conditional release decisions. Third, the article aims to provide research-driven information to assist clinicians in conducting conditional release evaluations. Finally, this paper provides a model for evaluating dangerousness in the context of conditional release evaluations. Given the substantial comorbidity between substance abuse and psychosis, it is critical for researchers and clinicians to consider potential effects of substance abuse when evaluating insanity acquittees for conditional release, especially as substance use relates to future dangerousness. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Legislator voting and behavioral science theory: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the application of behavioral science theories to explain the voting behavior of legislators for public health policies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify studies that examined factors associated with legislator support, intention to vote, or actual votes on public health policies, emphasizing those grounded in behavior science theory. RESULTS: Twenty-one papers met our inclusion criteria, and 6 were explicitly grounded in a behavioral science theory. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral science theories, and the theory of planned behavior in particular, provide a framework for understanding legislator voting behavior and can be used by advocates to advance pro-health policies.

Terrorism and the behavioral sciences.

Terrorism has existed for millennia and is a phenomenon well-known to many parts of the world. Americans were forced to recognize this phenomenon, and our vulnerability to it, by two sets of events in 2001: the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC, and the anthrax mailings that followed shortly thereafter. Psychiatry, psychology, and other behavioral and social sciences have been looked to for assistance in collecting and analyzing intelligence data, understanding terrorism, and developing strategies to combat terrorism. In addition to reviewing areas in which the behavioral sciences have made contributions in addressing this problem, this article discusses the developing roles for behavioral scientists in this field.

The admissibility of behavioral science evidence in the courtroom: the translation of legal to scientific concepts and back.

Starting with the Daubert case, courtroom rules and guides regulating the admissibility of scientific evidence have undergone major revisions over the past 10 to 15 years. We review these changes and current legal rules and guides, in particular their impact on the admission of behavioral sciences evidence and testimony. We examine commonly intended meanings, conceptualizations, and language use relating to science and the admission of evidence within the legal system and their relation to more familiar terms and concepts within the behavioral sciences, identifying points of continuity and discontinuity. We then review illustrative legal cases involving challenges to the admission of psychological and psychiatric evidence and their implications for mental health professionals. Finally, we offer a framework for conceptualizing and prioritizing key legal criteria for determining admissibility and appraising standing on these factors within the mental health field. Increased mutual understanding between psychology and law should further enhance productive interfaces between the disciplines and add to the many instances in which the proper use of science in the courtroom has facilitated fair resolution of legal conflicts.