Forensic mental health services provide care to people in secure psychiatric hospitals and via specialised community teams. Such services are typically low volume and high cost, often highly restrictive and average duration of inpatient care prior to discharge is long. Measuring outcomes of care is important to safeguard patients and the public, monitor progress, inform treatment plans and assist in service evaluation and planning. We describe the development in England of a new outcome measure for forensic mental health services. Patient interviews and multistakeholder focus groups were held to elicit key concepts. Thematic analysis was used to develop an outcomes framework. Fifteen patients participated in the interviews and 48 stakeholders in the focus groups. Six domains were identified in thematic analysis: 'about me, my quality of life, my health, my safety and risk, my life skills and my progress'. Sixty-two stakeholders participated in the first round of the Delphi process, and 49 completed round two. Eight of the top fifteen outcomes were shared between patients/carers and professionals. Based on these results, a new outcome measure, the FORensic oUtcome Measure (FORUM), was developed including both a patient reported and clinician reported measure. Further assessment of the FORUM's use to track patients' progress over time, and facilitate shared decision-making and care planning, is required.

Little is known about why some ex-armed forces personnel become involved in the criminal justice system, however, they represent the largest known occupational group in prison. In-depth interviews were employed to explore possible pathways to offending. Twenty ex-armed forces personnel in prison were recruited from five prisons in England. Data were analysed using a combination of thematic analysis and constant comparison methods rooted in grounded theory. Four predominant themes were identified: . Participants had experienced a number of traumatic incidents and adversity in their lives, encompassing pre, during and post-service but felt a sense of belonging in the armed forces. Participants demonstrated impulsivity in a number of areas with links to both their service in the armed forces and offending behaviour. The creation of the identity of 'soldier' was perceived to impact participants' lives in a number of ways, including their offending, alcohol use and coping with trauma. The interplay of these themes and their potential impact on participants' pathways to offending are discussed.

This study examined prospective jurors' expectancies for the verbal and nonverbal behavior of a child testifying in a sexual abuse case. Community members (N = 261) reporting for jury duty completed a survey in which they described their expectancies for how a child alleging sexual abuse would appear when testifying and their beliefs about discerning children's truthfulness, testimony stress, and fairness to trial parties. Within this survey, we varied the child's age (5, 10, or 15 years old), type of abuse alleged (vaginal fondling or penetration), and whether the abuse actually occurred (yes, no) between participants across five different testimony conditions (traditional live in-court, support person present, closed-circuit television, preparation, and videotape) within each participant. Participants expected a child providing traditional testimony to be more nervous, tearful, and fidgety; less confident, cooperative, and fluent; and to maintain less eye contact and provide shorter responses than when the child provided alternative forms of testimony. Participants believed it was easiest to determine a child's truthfulness and fairest to the defendant when the child testified live in court, but that this form of testimony was the most stressful and unfair to the child. Expectancies and beliefs differed within the alternative forms of testimony as well. Negative evaluations of children's alternative testimony may be the result of expectancy violation; namely, jurors expect differences in children's verbal and nonverbal behavior as a result of accommodation, but those differences actually do not occur.

This introduction describes what the co-editors believe readers can expect in this Special Issue. After beliefs and expectancies are defined, examples of how these constructs influence human thought, feeling, and behavior in legal settings are considered. Brief synopses are provided for the Special Issue papers on beliefs and expectancies regarding alibis, children's testimony behavior, eyewitness testimony, confessions, sexual assault victims, judges' decisions in child protection cases, and attorneys' beliefs about jurors' perceptions of juvenile offender culpability. Areas for future research are identified, and readers are encouraged to discover new ways that beliefs and expectancies operate in the legal system.

Competence to consent to treatment has not previously been examined in a personality disorder cohort without comorbid mental disorder. We examined competence and coercion in 174 individuals diagnosed with severe personality disorder using two validated tools (the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment and the MacArthur Coercion Assessment Scale - Short Form). Competence was not categorically impaired, but there were variations within the sample on dimensional competence measures. Further, there were significant negative correlations between experienced coercion and competence. Higher coercion scores were associated with two components of competence: lower understanding and reasoning. Patients who consented to treatment had higher scores on competence measures and experienced less coercion. These findings suggest that therapeutic approaches that decrease experienced coercion and increase competence may increase the engagement of individuals diagnosed with severe personality disorders in treatment.

People with mental illnesses are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Many interventions have been implemented to treat the underlying causes of criminal justice involvement and prevent people with mental illnesses from recidivating. Mental health courts (MHC) are one of these programs. This analysis examines the relationship between psychiatric symptoms and MHC engagement. Eighty MHC participants from two Midwestern MHCs were interviewed. Symptom severity was assessed at baseline using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. MHC engagement was estimated by treatment adherence, substance use, days spent in jail, probation violations, and MHC retention during a six month follow-up period. Using nonparametric statistical tests and logistic regression, results indicate symptoms of depression, anxiety, and guilt are more severe at baseline for those people who are incarcerated during the follow-up period. Symptoms of anxiety are more severe for people who are terminated or went missing during the follow-up period. Further research is needed to determine the directionality and causality of these relationships. MHCs professionals should be aware of the relationship between symptom severity and MHC engagement and attempt to connect participants with treatment and services as early as possible and individualize treatment plans based on current symptoms and need.

The role of the expert witness in legal contexts is to educate fact finders of the court who may have no background in the expert's area. This role can be especially difficult for those who assist in cases involving individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). As expert assistance on ASD is crucial to ensuring just outcomes for individuals diagnosed with ASD, knowledge on how expert witnesses perceive and approach their roles, and what factors may influence these perceptions, is essential. This qualitative research utilizes semi-structured interviews with a sample of expert witnesses in cases involving ASD, analyzed using a grounded-theory constant comparative analytic approach. Data reveal that experts appear to view their roles in court as reconstructionists, educators, myth-dispellers, and most of all, communicators, actively using their testimony to fill these roles in cases. These results also allow for the development of a model that illustrates two areas that coalesce to affect how experts view their roles in court: (1) personal experiences of experts in cases in which they have been involved; and (2) influences outside experts' personal experiences, such as their general opinions or observations regarding ASD and its relationship to the criminal justice system.

In the American criminal justice system the vast majority of criminal convictions occur as the result of guilty pleas, often made as a result of plea bargains, rather than jury trials. The incentives offered in exchange for guilty pleas mean that both innocent and guilty defendants plead guilty. We investigate the role of attorneys in this context, through interviews with criminal defense attorneys. We examine defense attorney perspectives on the extent to which innocent defendants are (and should be) pleading guilty in the current legal framework and their views of their own role in this complex system. We also use a hypothetical case to probe the ways in which defense attorneys consider guilt or innocence when providing advice on pleas. Results indicate that attorney advice is influenced by guilt or innocence, but also that attorneys are limited in the extent to which they can negotiate justice for their clients in a system in which uncertainty and large discrepancies between outcomes of guilty pleas and conviction at trial can make it a sensible option to plead guilty even when innocent. Results also suggest conflicting opinions over the role of the attorney in the plea-bargaining process.

Across cultures humans care deeply about morality and create institutions, such as criminal courts, to enforce social norms. In such contexts, judges and juries engage in complex social decision-making to ascertain a defendant's capacity, blameworthiness, and culpability. Cognitive neuroscience investigations have begun to reveal the distributed neural networks which interact to implement moral judgment and social decision-making, including systems for reward learning, valuation, mental state understanding, and salience processing. These processes are fundamental to morality, and their underlying neural mechanisms are influenced by individual differences in empathy, caring and justice sensitivity. This new knowledge has important implication in legal settings for understanding how triers of fact reason. Moreover, recent work demonstrates how disruptions within the social decision-making network facilitate immoral behavior, as in the case of psychopathy. Incorporating neuroscientific methods with psychology and clinical neuroscience has the potential to improve predictions of recidivism, future dangerousness, and responsivity to particular forms of rehabilitation.

There is a growing literature on biological explanations of antisocial and criminal behavior. This paper provides a selective review of three specific biological factors - psychophysiology (with the focus on blunted heart rate and skin conductance), brain mechanisms (with a focus on structural and functional aberrations of the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and striatum), and genetics (with an emphasis on gene-environment and gene-gene interactions). Overall, understanding the role of biology in antisocial and criminal behavior may help increase the explanatory power of current research and theories, as well as inform policy and treatment options.

The present study examined adults' ( = 295) interpretations of child witnesses' referentially ambiguous "yes" and "no" responses to "Do You Know/Remember (DYK/R) if/whether" questions (e.g., "Do you know if it was blue?"). Participants were presented with transcripts from child sexual abuse cases modified based on question format (DYK/R vs. Direct) and child response type (Yes, No, I don't know) in a between subjects design. We assessed whether adults recognized that children's ambiguous responses were unclear, and if not, how they were interpreting children's responses compared to the control (Direct) conditions. More specifically, we assessed whether adults interpreted children's responses as answering the explicit (e.g., "No, I don't remember") or implicit (e.g., "No, it wasn't blue") question. Participants virtually never recognized ambiguous responses as unclear, and their interpretations were influenced by the attorney's question and child's response type. In sum, these results suggest that DYK/R questions often lead to misinterpretation, resulting in miscommunication.

Previous research has examined young and middle-aged adults' perceptions of child witnesses; however, no research to date has examined how potential older adult jurors may perceive a child witness. The present investigation examined younger (18-30 years, = 100) and older adults' (66-89 years, = 100) lie-detection and credibility judgments when viewing children's truthful and dishonest reports. Participants viewed eight child interview videos where children (9 to 11 years of age) either provided a truthful report or a coached fabricated report to conceal a transgression. Participants provided lie-detection judgments following all eight videos and credibility assessments following the first two videos. Participants completed a General Lifespan Credibility questionnaire to assess credibility evaluations across various witness ages. Lie-detection results indicated that older adults had significantly lower discrimination scores, a stronger truth bias, and greater confidence compared to younger adults. Older adults also rated children as more competent to testify in court, credible, honest, believable, and likeable than younger adults. Participants with greater differences in their credibility evaluations for truth and lie-tellers were significantly more accurate at detecting lies. Responses to the Lifespan Credibility questionnaire revealed significant differences in younger and older adults' credibility evaluations across the lifespan.

In the United Kingdom, Section 27 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act permits "Achieving Best Evidence" (ABE) forensic interviews to replace the evidence-in-chief in cases involving children. It is therefore imperative that forensic interviewers elicit complete, reliable, and coherent narratives from children. The goal of the current research study was to assess the coherence of forensic interviews and whether the interviewers' emotional or cognitive support was associated with increases in the coherence of these interviews. Children's narrative coherence was examined in 80 transcripts of ABE investigative interviews with 7- to-15-year-olds who disclosed sexual abuse. Narrative coherence was assessed using the Narrative Coherence Coding Scheme, including three dimensions of narrative coherence: chronology, consistency, and theme (Reese et al., 2011). Findings revealed that first elicited events were more likely to be more coherent compared to subsequently elicited events, and child engagement was positively associated with all dimensions of narrative coherence. Interviewer support was positively associated with chronology, script accounts of abuse were associated with decreased consistency and chronology (but not theme), and cognitive support was not associated with any dimension of narrative coherence.

While researchers find that attorneys in CSA trials dedicate substantial time to questioning children about the plausibility of their reports, we know of no study to date that has assessed the types of plausibility issues attorneys raise, the relative frequency of different types, or if attorneys vary their plausibility questioning depending on case characteristics. In the current study we explored these questions. Guided by the story model of jury decision-making, we proposed defense attorneys would raise plausibility issues by 1) highlighting jurors' misconceptions about CSA dynamics; 2) highlighting confusing or implausible statements made by the child; and 3) offering alternative explanations for events. We conducted a content analysis of the cross-examinations of 134 children aged 5-17 testifying about alleged CSA. We found that attorneys raised all three proposed types of plausibility questioning, and they varied their plausibility questioning somewhat by age, severity, child-defendant relationship, and the number of victims in the case. Attorneys' preferred strategy was to highlight jurors' misconceptions about CSA. Prosecutors should address jurors' misconceptions preemptively in direct examinations of children or through expert testimony. Beyond implications for courtroom practices, our plausibility framework may apply to plausibility concerns raised in other crime types, something researchers should explore.