It is probably true that in all the sciences there is no hard and fast line between the “pure” study of the subject and its technical applications. Theoretical physics is, perhaps, closely akin to Buddhist philosophy but the study of mechanics obviously leads to the study of machinery, just as chemistry leads to chemical engineering, or the abstract sociological study of society leads to the formulation of social policy. Psychology in particular is a very applicable science. It is difficult to study human behaviour without being drawn in to changing human behaviour or trying to mitigate the effects of human behaviour. There are health psychologists and the more exalted clinical psychologists; there are educational psychologists, child psychologists and occupational psychologists galore. In among these are an ever‐increasing number of people who call themselves forensic psychologists, and an ever‐increasing number of degree and, especially, masters degree courses to cater for them. It is a well‐attested fact that student recruitment for any course, from archaeology to zoology, can be boosted by adding the word “forensic” to the front of its title. This has been most especially noticeable in psychology, where interest has been boosted by various television series in which psychologists have been glamorised into super‐detectives, brilliantly profiling offenders from fragments of behavioural evidence. I have to admit that my experience of the errors that psychologists can make even when they have had lengthy one‐to‐one conversations with clients leaves me feeling very dubious about their ability to profile people they have never met.
Offender profiling has, of course, a much longer and more unpleasant history than psychology. From Lombroso's physiognomic studies of criminal faces back to Jacobean witch‐finders, “expert” advice has been used to stigmatise groups or individuals. If the police stop disproportionate numbers of young black men “on suspicion” it is because they are using a rudimentary form of offender profiling. This raises such important issues that I would really have liked to see chapter 7.1 of this book – Ethical Practice, put near the front, as a starting point.
Fortunately there is very much more to forensic psychology than this over‐glamorised facet. In fact psychologists get involved with legal, criminal and oenological activities in so many different ways that it is quite hard to argue that there is such a thing as a single sub‐discipline of “forensic psychology”. Is a psychologist called in to assess a child victim of sexual abuse a forensic psychologist or a child psychologist? Given the enormous proportion of people in prison who suffer from mental disorders and/or substance abuse disorders, psychologists working in the prison service have to primarily act as health psychologists, even if they are also called in to advise on parole decision making etc, where, in contradistinction to the usual role of the counsellor or therapist, their prime legal responsibility is to society not to the individual client.
This conflict of responsibilities affects several aspects of forensic psychology. The relationship between law and psychology is a difficult one. Psychology is, or aims to be, a science. Scientists try to find universal principles that apply across all cases. Lawyers try to apply universal principles to individual cases. Psychologists, like all other experts drawn into the legal system, are at risk of become adversarial rather than scientifically balanced. One of the contributors to this book once told me about an occasion when a lawyer asked him if he would act as an expert witness to attest that something was the case. When he said that he did not think it was the case, the lawyer said “Oh. Well can you suggest somebody who will do it then?” Lawyers are trained to be adversarial. Scientists have to be careful when dealing with them.
Psychologists tend to be drawn more into criminal law. There is a short section here on civil law, with chapters on work‐related stress, asylum seekers, consent and capacity, discrimination, and, personal injury. As far as I am aware forensic psychologists have not yet homed in on topics like tax avoidance or motoring offences; and the behaviour of individuals within corporations or financial organizations, however damaging to society, still seems to be the province of their occupational or social brethren.
Assessing the mental state of criminals is an important and difficult task. There was an occasion when a group of gunmen holed up in a London restaurant and a UK professor of forensic psychiatry (one of the few British experts not to have contributed to this book) very courageously went in to talk to them. Asked afterwards what he made of them, he offered the succinct professional diagnosis “they're all bonkers”. Psychologists are called on to evaluate evidence. I was very glad to see the recovered memory industry getting short shrift here, though its supporters will remain unconvinced. Most especially, psychologists have done some very useful and important work evaluating eyewitness testimony and interrogative suggestibility. Gisli Gudjonsson has done some very valiant work in recent years helping free people who have made false confessions. I was very glad to see that he had been given the opportunity to very briefly summarise his activities for this book.
“Very briefly” is, unfortunately, the key phrase. The editors of this book have gallantly attempted to cover every aspect of psychology that can possibly relate to forensic, criminological, oenological or legal activities. They summoned up over a hundred highly reputed English and American experts to contribute, but to do this in 102 chapters taking up little over 800 pages means that they get very little space each. Most of the topics discussed here are covered elsewhere in full‐length books, often by these same experts. Some contributors manage better than others – Tom MacMillan manages to cover the relationship between head injury and offending in seven succinct, well‐referenced, pages, but David Canter on offender profiling can do little more than skate over the topic and refer the reader to his numerous other publications on it. This book is therefore useful as a quick broad overview of a huge range of topics, rather than as a textbook or in‐depth study.
The mushroom growth of forensic courses has, of course, led to an explosion of literary activity. Looking just through the current year's output I noted the nearest direct rival to this book as being Forensic Psychology (Towl and Crighton, 2010). Towl was, of course, an editor of the Dictionary of Forensic Psychology (Towl et al., 2008) (RR 2009/04). I also noted the excellent Forensic Mental Health (Bartlett and McGauley, 2010), new editions of the Handbook of Forensic Neuropsychology (Horton and Hartlage, 2010) and Psychology And Law (Kapardis, 2010), and, even broader in scope than the book under review, Abnormal, Clinical and Forensic Psychology (Holmes, 2010). We have also recently looked at the more specialised Assessment of Mental Capacity (Letts, 2010) (RR 2011/171) and I am sure that there are plenty more in the pipeline. As is so often the case in specialised subfields like this, several of the contributors to this book have also contributed to some of the others. There is inevitably a large overlap in content. Libraries that have a selection of these books in stock may feel that they have covered the field adequately. I would be hard put to choose between this and Towl and Crighton if only one book was to be chosen.
I would personally have preferred a book that covered fewer topics in greater depth. I remain of the opinion that the subject is too broad and diffuse to be within the scope of one individual, so the sub‐discipline of “forensic psychology” does not really exist, and therefore no one book can cover it properly. The students who flock to courses on it obviously disagree with me on this, and we must try to cater for them. All academic libraries catering for courses in psychology, criminology or law related topics should consider this for acquisition as it provides compact coverage of an enormous range of relevant topics. The book is obviously designed more for students than for general readers, but there is quite a lot of television‐induced public interest in the subject, so public libraries may also find it worth considering.
