David S DeMatteo

This study investigated the use of psychopathy assessments in Canadian courts between 1980 and 2023. We reviewed 3,315 court cases and found that psychopathy assessments were used in two distinct ways: either as a clinical measure of psychopathy or exclusively for risk assessment purposes. Psychopathy assessments are most commonly introduced in court by prosecutors, with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) being the most frequently used tool. The use of psychopathy assessments increased by 858% from the year 2000 to its peak in 2013, followed by a 10-year gradual (63%) decline. There was evidence of adversarial allegiance where prosecution-retained experts gave defendants higher PCL-R scores (d = 1.08) compared to defense-retained experts. PCL-R assessments showed poor reliability when comparing paired scores between prosecution and defense experts, suggesting a high risk of Type 1 and Type 2 errors. Intraclass correlation coefficient between prosecution- and defense-retained experts was .079 (95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.12, 0.34]), where 40% of experts had a >= 5.9 points scoring difference. A qualitative analysis of 183 expert testimonies on the perceived forensic risk and treatment prospects associated with psychopathy showed significant variability in expert testimonies. Most experts linked psychopathy to a high risk of recidivism (72.36%) and described it as a categorically untreatable condition (50.63%), where many experts also stated that treatment makes psychopathic persons worse (15.82%). These findings suggest that some expert testimonies on psychopathy are not aligned with the empirical research. We discuss the potential implications for legal practitioners and comment on the future role of psychopathy assessments in Canadian courts.

As the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society (Division 41 of the American Psychological Association), Law and Human Behavior occupies a prominent position in the psychology-law field. It is a privilege to introduce this special section celebrating the journal's 50th anniversary. A review of the types of articles published in Law and Human Behavior over the past 5 decades reveals that the journal has continued to evolve to reflect the most important developments in the field in an effort to serve as a valuable resource for researchers, clinicians, legal professionals, and policymakers. The evolution of Law and Human Behavior is likely attributable, at least in part, to recent advances in forensic research and clinical-forensic practice, the increasingly complex legal landscape relevant to the psychology-law field, and growing recognition of the value of high-quality empirical research.

In this issue, Sheerin et al. (see record 2026-26025-001) report on the state of the research on behavioral health-focused psychosocial interventions for youth in the juvenile legal system. They conducted a methodologically rigorous systematic review, with adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1990 and 2024. Results of their systematic review revealed 51 studies from 38 unique RCTs; family-focused interventions were the most frequently tested, and the most commonly studied outcomes were delinquency and conduct problems, followed by alcohol use and substance use. Given the small number of identified RCTs, Sheerin et al. (2025) concluded that the field needs more RCTs that focus on the behavioral health of youth in the juvenile legal system. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)

Mental health professionals who conduct forensic assessments are often exposed to stressors during evaluations of justice-involved individuals (e.g., graphic descriptions of violence, crime scene photos), yet little research has examined vicarious trauma among forensic mental health evaluators. Vicarious trauma refers to the emotional and psychological impact experienced by individuals who are indirectly exposed to traumatic events. This study used a self-report survey to examine how various protective and risk factors impact the prevalence of vicarious trauma among forensic psychologists (N = 82). Results revealed that perceived social support, trait empathy, the total number of evaluations conducted, and substance use as a coping skill were not significantly related to forensic psychologists' experience of vicarious trauma. Although results were not statistically significant, this study's methodology contributes to the existing literature by exploring how vicarious trauma may manifest differently in forensic psychologists when compared to other "helping professions," and it provides suggestions for future research to more accurately capture the construct of vicarious trauma. Future research should seek to improve existing operationalizations of vicarious trauma and explore it'sprevalence among other types of forensic mental health evaluators.

With roots dating to the beginning of the 20th century, forensic psychology has developed into a thriving specialty, as demonstrated by the establishment of a variety of professional organizations concerned with research and practice in the area, the large number of journals devoted to forensic research and practice, the proliferation of tests that have been developed to facilitate forensic psychological assessments, and the various guidelines that have been published to guide practice. Nonetheless, forensic psychology practice is facing a number of challenges at the current time that we address below, including problems with the current American Psychological Association ethics code, tensions between ethical and legal obligations to ensure test security and the law’s demands for transparency and access to evidence, and the specialty area’s failure to develop guidelines for specific areas of practice.

Based on a review of 16 recently submitted amicus curiae briefs by the American Psychological Association (APA) to the Supreme Court of the United States and other important courts, Marcus et al. (2025) strongly suggest that these briefs contain a significant number of inaccurate citations. They argue that these miscitations (a) misinform the court about important psychological findings, (b) could lead to significant injustice and harm, and (c) jeopardize the reputation of the APA vis-à-vis the courts and public. In this commentary, while acknowledging that inaccurate citations should be corrected, we take issue with (a) the manner in which Marcus et al. coded APA's amicus curiae briefs, (b) the significance of the problems created by these miscitations, and (c) the authors' misunderstanding of courts' review and use of amicus curiae briefs in judicial decision making. In the end, while agreeing there might be a need for additional review to prevent inaccurate citation in amicus curiae briefs, we argue that most of the inaccurate citations are likely harmless errors with little effect on APA's reputation or court decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

: Disordered eating and problematic drinking frequently co-occur among college students, yet treatment engagement remains low. This study examined treatment engagement and predictors to inform outreach strategies.
: Participants were college students aged 18-25 (
 = 11,439) from the 2022 and 2023 Healthy Minds Study cohorts.
Treatment engagement was compared for students screening positive for disordered eating, problematic drinking, both, or neither. Predictors of treatment engagement were examined in the comorbid group.
Most students (57.4%) screened negative; 25.7% screened positive for disordered eating, 9.4% for problematic drinking, and 7.5% for both concerns. Compared to other groups, the co-occurring group reported greater depression, anxiety, and cannabis use. Treatment engagement did not vary by group. Among comorbid students, key predictors of treatment engagement included knowledge of resources and perceived need.
Findings underscore treatment engagement gaps and the importance of campus screening and targeted outreach for students with co-occurring concerns.

Sex offender policy in the United States is predicated on accomplishing risk reduction and increasing public safety via punishment and incapacitation. Theoretically, accomplishing these goals should lessen the risk that sex offenders pose to society. However, an accumulated research base suggests that sex offender policies are ineffective in that they do not reduce recidivism rates, do not diminish children’s risk of sexual predation, and produce numerous detrimental collateral consequences. Further, current sex offender policies may actively undermine risk reduction by placing factors known to reduce risk level, such as stable housing, employment, and social support, out of the reach of sex offenders. Protecting victims should be one of the most important goals of sex offender policy, yet these laws have not significantly reduced the prevalence and pain of sexual violence. Despite the obvious shortcomings of sex offender policies in the United States, systemic reform does not appear to be on the horizon. However, this Article seeks to explore a way to work within this reality: subverting the system. Accordingly, it first seeks to outline sex offender policies as they currently stand in the United States, focusing on measures including registration, community notification, and residency restriction, while noting the drawbacks to such measures. Second, it offers explanations for why sex offender policies in the United States appear to be shortsighted, as well as offers explanations based in social science for why this short-sightedness is unlikely to change. Third, it explores previous examples of subverting a restrictive system, those of juvenile specialty courts, adult drug courts, and adult mental health courts. Lastly, it pro vides a proposal for subverting the system as regards sex offenders in the form of sex offender specialty courts.

This special issue explores the intersection of justice, legitimacy, and technology to illuminate connections among these inter-related concepts and provide much-needed data that have the potential to inform governmental actors and institutions. This Introduction begins with a discussion of the motivating influences and goals for the special issue, followed by a summary of the articles we selected for inclusion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Operational psychologists provide a variety of psychological services in support of national security, national defense, and public safety. Their work may include the assessment of personnel for high-risk positions, consultation to investigations and crisis negotiations, support to military or intelligence training and operations, or other types of psychological and behavioral assessments. The practice of operational psychology differs in important ways from other practice areas and has developed significantly over the past 20 years. Given developments in the field, debate about the proper roles of psychologists in national security settings, and psychologists’ ongoing need for guidance, these Professional Practice Guidelines for Operational Psychology are provided to benefit operational psychologists, the recipients of their services, and other affected parties. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)