Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Teka Commission of Legal Sciences Polish Academy of Sciences Branch in Lublin

Vol. 15 No. 2 (2022)

Articles

Psychological Expertising in Juvenile Delinquency Cases in Poland: Principles for Evaluation of Psychological Opinion

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32084/tkp.5128  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2022-12-31

Abstract

In the article analysed the practice of obtaining opinions of expert psychologist in juvenile delinquency cases. The choice of types of cases is premeditated, and is based on their specific character. Juvenile delinquency cases are special in terms of their subjects (children and adolescence) and aims to be achieved (the welfare of the child/adolescence). Forensic psychology expertise plays a significant part in arriving at a court ruling. Therefore, it is important to raise the quality of diagnostic procedures, expertise activities, and to establish evaluation standards for evidence from psychological expertise. The presentation of proposed psychological expertise standards should take a form of guidelines and recommendations to be met by the experts, and serve as an aid to expertise evaluation performed by courts. To reach these goals, we gathered and analyzed court records of juvenile cases in six districts (N = 253). The results of the research are related to a) the analysis of the methodological and diagnostic procedures used by experts in the process of psychological evaluation in juvenile cases and b) the formulation of principles for evaluating the evidence of psychological opinions for trial authorities. The research project indicates the practice of psychological experts by the court, the diagnostic procedure and the method of formulating psychological opinions. The analysis of the material showed, first of all, the diversity of the diagnostic and opinion practices of psychologists, thus confirming the lack of procedures standardizing the process of psychological evaluation. The variety of assessment tools, and method, and areas of diagnosis make difficulties in assessing of the evidentiary value of psychological-court opinions. The lack of principle for assessing level of opinions’ quality may promote the practice of so-called junk science.

References

  1. Błażek, Magdalena, and Beata Pastwa-Wojciechowska. 2009. “Opiniowanie sądowo-psychologiczne w sprawach nieletnich: błędy proceduralne i merytoryczne.” In Dziecko jako ofiara przemocy, edited by Bożena Gulla, and Małgorzata Wysocka-Pleczyk, 157-68. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bonnie, Richard J., and Thomas Grisso. 2000. “Adjudicative competence and youthful offenders.” In Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice, edited by Thomas Grisso, and Robert G. Schwartz, 73-103. Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gudjonsson, Gisli H. 1995. “Psychological evidence in court.” European Journal of Psychological Assessment 11, no. 1:59-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.11.1.59 [Google Scholar]
  4. Hecker. Thomas, and Laurence Steinberg. 2002. “Psychological Evaluation at Juvenile Court Disposition.” Professional Psychology Research and Practice33, no. 3:300-306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33.3.300 [Google Scholar]
  5. Heilbrun, Kirk. 2001. Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York, N.Y.: Kluwer Academic. [Google Scholar]
  6. Heilbrun, Kirk. 2003. “Principles of forensic mental health assessment: Implications for the forensic assessment of sexual offenders.” Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 989:167-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb07304.x [Google Scholar]
  7. Heilbrun, Kirk, David DeMatteo, and Geoffrey Marczyk. 2004. “Pragmatic psychology, forensic metal health assessment, and the case of Thomas Johnson: Pllying principles to promote quality.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 10:31-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.1-2.31 [Google Scholar]
  8. Heilbrun, Kirk, Thomas Grisso, and Alan M. Goldstein. 2009. The foundations of forensic mental health assessment. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780195323092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Heilbrun, Kirk, and Stephanie Brooks. 2010. “Forensic psychology and forensic science: A proposed agenda for the next decade.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 16:219-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019138 [Google Scholar]
  10. Neal, Tess, and Thomas Grisso. 2014. “Assessment Practices and Expert Judgment Methods in Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry: An International Snapshot.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 41:1406-421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548449 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ostaszewski, Paweł. 2010. Opinie diagnostyczne w sprawach nieletnich. Warszawa: IWS. [Google Scholar]
  12. Otto, Randy, and Randy Borum. 2004. “Evaluation of youth in the juvenile justice system.” In Handbook of forensic psychology: Resource for mental health and legal professionals, edited by William T. O’Donohue, and Eric R. Levensky, 873-95. Elsevier Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012524196-0/50036-X [Google Scholar]
  13. Sparta, Steven. N., and Gerald P. Koocher. 2006. Forensic Mental Health Assessment of Children and Adolescents. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780195145847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Widła, Tadeusz. 2015. “Jeszcze raz o ekspertyzach pozasądowych.” Prokuratura i Prawo 7-8:36-43. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)