The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of psychiatric diagnosis in forensic assessments, highlighting the risks associated with its uncritical application in justice settings. This study explores how overreliance on diagnostic labels can contribute to reductionism, psychiatrisation, concept creep and stigma, potentially undermining fair and individualised decision-making.
This paper draws on relevant theories, empirical research and ethical commentary to analyse the limitations of diagnostic frameworks in forensic contexts. This study considers how diagnoses may overlook key contextual factors such as trauma and personal history and proposes more holistic, interdisciplinary alternatives.
Diagnostic labelling in forensic settings can lead to narrow, decontextualised understandings of individuals, increasing the risk of bias and injustice. This paper identifies formulation-based assessment, trauma-informed practice and interdisciplinary collaboration as practical approaches to support more ethical and person-centred evaluations. This study also provides practical recommendations for forensic clinicians to use diagnosis more responsibly and transparently to avoid concept creep.
This paper provides actionable guidance for forensic clinicians to mitigate diagnostic bias, integrate contextual understanding and improve communication between disciplines to avoid concept creep.
By promoting ethical and contextualised approaches to psychiatric evaluation, this paper supports a more humane and just forensic system, better aligned with principles of dignity, equity and individualisation.
This paper offers a novel synthesis of critiques surrounding psychiatric diagnosis in forensic settings, introducing a framework that bridges clinical and legal thinking. This study contributes to ongoing debates about the ethical use of psychiatric knowledge in justice contexts, particularly considering concept creep and psychiatrisation.
