Experts in the legal field can have biases. These biases can be controlled for by training. In other words, I am interested in the types of biases legal experts can have, the effect of training on those biases, and the effect of correct training on mitigating those biases. Both of these article relate to the role of forensic psychiatry in the legal system. Yeo (2002), looks into a specific Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v Stone. He explores the advantages of the conclusions reached by this decision. Reynolds and Miles (2009) in a pilot study explored the effect of training on the quality of a HCR-20 assessment. The HCR-20 is a approach to assess the risk of violence that a mentally disordered patient could have. Both of these papers …show more content…
The R v stone decision clarified the difference between mental disorder and non mental disorder automatism. Automatism according to Yeo is the lack of control in regards to actions they do not want to commit. Specifically in terms of law, the defence of automatism, under R v Stone, should be considered like mental illness. Wherein the burden of proof is on the accused and expert testimony is valued. Yeo also praised the use of the internal cause test and the continuing danger test. The internal cause test looks at whether or not the automatism is the result of something biological or psychological. The continuing danger test is a method used to determine whether or not that the accused will or will not be a danger to society if they were released. Both of these tests need an expert to conduct or relay the results of the tests. This article is an exploration into the benefits of the R v Stone …show more content…
The HCR-20 looks at historical, clinical, and risk management of the mentally disordered. This test relies on both static and dynamic factors. Specifically in this paper there were two conditions one was a full training course and the other was a introductory/refresher course. All of the participants looked at inpatient files of already diagnosed inmates. The participants underwent a pre and post test. Those who completed the program were able to complete the post test. In both the pre- and post-test the participants were asked to evaluate the quality and the relevant risk information with the HCR-20 in mind. That is to say, the participants evaluated the quality of risk management plans, historical, clinical factors in the inpatient files. The researchers used the chi-squared and the Mann Whitney U test. They found a significant increase in quality after training. The strongest improvement was in the quality of the risk management plan assessment that had a reduced standard deviation. It is important to note that there was no significant difference between the HCR-20s between the experts and regular staff. After the initial study the participants who completed the training took a survey for feedback about