payment plan breast augmentation uk

>> so, if we couldgive dr. kieliszewski a welcoming hand. (applause) >> good afternoon-- caneveryone hear me okay? >> yes.>> okay. i want to thank dr. vargoand dr. conners for giving me the opportunityto talk with you today. i'm gonna play a little bitoff that whole track thing-- community college student.

hopefully, you don'ttake this track. alpena community college, i was on academicprobation for a couple-- for a year or two,and when they, um-- then many, many years laterwhen i sort of figured it out, i was awarded theirdistinguished alumni award 2004 and my opening was,"isn't this great? "the institution that putme on academic probation "is now awarding me as one oftheir distinguished alumni."

so, i hope you don'tfollow that track. so if you're a littleconfused in life, you know, it could straightenout for ya. what we're gonna talk abouttoday is forensic psychology. dr. conners gave a littlebit of my background, and i am actually just twoblocks down the street here. so, it's kinda nice thatyou've got someone in town who can talk a littlebit about this. we're gonna focus on the realworld of forensic psychology

and i hope it's nottoo disappointing... um, not riding around in theback of squad cars with a gun trying to track downserial killers. i've seen many serialkillers over the years. we can talk a littlebit about that. what i think i'm gonna dotoday in the presentation is i'm gonna talk a little bitabout forensic psychology in general, try to give you a tasteof how broad the field is

and what's involvedin the field, and then, i'm gonnahighlight a few things that, as a workingforensic psychologist, i deal with ona daily basis. some of these things i'm sureyou've heard of in the media. insanity, competencyto stand trial, things like that. we'll get into acouple of other issues-- um, or a couple ofother tasks that i do

as a workingforensic psychologist that have to dowith family law. if two people are goingthrough a divorce and they're fightingover custody, sometimes the judgesends them to me to do a custodyevaluation. i'll talk a littlebit about that. i'm planning on talkingfor about an hour-- i've got a lotof slides.

i don't know if i'llget through all of them. we'll kinda seewhere it goes. and then, i think thewas this was designed was i'd sorta do presentationfor the first hour or so, and then justfield questions. and then,i can just-- i like that it was designed thatway because, in my opinion, when i do talkslike this, one of the things that i thinkpeople get the most out of

is when you put thecurriculum down and you start having discussionsand asking questions. so where we'llstart out today is... i'm gonna put up a very,very simple definition of "forensic psychology." you'll find out it's notsuch a simple area or field but the definitionis really simple-- "application ofpsychological science "within thelegal system."

a little bit on the historyof forensic psychology, or basicallypsychologists in court. it's been aninteresting history. there's a guy namedhugo mã¼nsterberg. isn't that agreat name? hugo mã¼nsterberg. 1908, wrote"on the witness stand," and, uh, hugo-- if i have anymore kids,i should name them hugo--

talks about allkinds of fun stuff. you know, back in these days,100 years ago, when you were apsychology professor, you could just make up stuffand write about it and people tried to go out andprove it or prove it wrong. well, hugo stepped ontosome interesting ideas-- "untrue confessions"is one of his chapters. why would people gomake a confession when theydidn't do it?

have you ever heard of thistopic in the media at all? it's called"false confessions" now. hugo go onto that. he also--"hypnotism in crime." anyone hear offamous cases-- well, about20 years ago now-- where childrenwould be hypnotized and would allegedly telltherapists and police that they were sexually abusedin their day care?

have you heardabout these? i mean, they were quitespectacular cases 20 years ago. well, hugo talksa bit about that. so, hugo was kinda thefirst forensic psychologist but, after hegot started, throughout the years andthroughout the centuries, psychologists have sort ofbeen in and out of court. social workers had a muchmore strong presence in court up until probablythe 1960s,

and then you would getpsychologists in and out, but there was no realforensic training programs. the '70s, things startedto get really interesting with psychologists becauseinsanity defenses came up. you've all heardof that, right? some famous cases--harvey milk. that harvey milk movie? i haven't seen that yet--i heard it's good, though. i think they did aninsanity defense--

they called it the"twinkie defense." we'll talk a littlebit about that stuff. so psychologists-- one of mycolleagues who started our firm in 1972--don van ostenberg-- said when helanded in town, psychologists weren't allowedin the courts in grand rapids. in the '80s, he startedbreaking into that. and now, we're an integral partof a lot of court decisions within specifictypes of problems.

so we'll get intomore of that. so, that is a realbasic definition. other examples of forensic--forensic pathology. anyone remember "quincy"?"quincy"? yeah, just the folksthat aren't super young. quincy was a forensicpathologist. he was an md,medical doctor, right? autopsies,cause of death. we all knowabout that stuff.

forensic science--that's the stuff that all thetv shows have, right? blood splatter analysisand things like that. forensic dentistry--do you ever hear that? trying to identify a bodyby bite marks, right? or bite marksin crimes. forensic accounting-- that'swhen you are arrested for fraud and the feds hire aforensic accountant to go in and look at the wayyou're keeping your books.

so all of these-- sothis would be accounting intertwined withthe legal system, dentistry intertwinedwith the legal system. oh, by the way, i forgot togive you my little warning. you know, i deal withreally kinda nasty people and nasty scenariosall day long, so i always have tokinda filter myself that i may givesome examples today, and i don't meanto offend people

or give youdisturbing stories. but, you know, i talkabout this stuff every day, so sometimes i might be alittle blunt and abrasive and i apologizeahead of time. wow, look at that. the broad area offorensic psychology. these are things thata forensic psychologist may have to deal withon a daily basis. insanity evaluations,criminal responsibility--

we're gonnahighlight those. look-- uh, juvenile competencyto stand trial. we'll talk moreabout that. guardianship--do you need a guardian? a forensic psychologistsometimes has to get involved. police psychology,expert testimony. i testify alot in court. risk for sexual offending,disability, civil litigation. you know whatthat means?

if someone runs intoyour car and you sue them and you say that youhave emotional distress and psychologicaldamage, you might need a forensicpsychologist to get involved. i do someof this. i tend to work morefor the defense. i'm not very good atkinda crafting an opinion to make anattorney happy. yeah,i actually--

someone's suing toyota andi got hired on that case. interesting. american withdisabilities act. if you have a disability andyou need special accommodations, or if youget fired and you say it was becauseof your disability. i've had caseslike that. fitness to carry a firearm--that's an interesting one. if you've been hospitalizedfor psychiatric reasons

and then you want aconcealed weapons permit. um, let's see. what other-- false confessions--i already mentioned that. trial consultation--i'll talk about that. that's reallyinteresting. victim psychology. we'll talk aboutcorrectional psychology. i was a prison psychologistfor seven years. oh, here's a good one--the psychology of lawyers.

that's my new area i'mkinda getting into. there's a greatbook on-- "know thyself, lawyer"or something like that, that i haveto order. and how do you trainlawyers to go into court and do a good job? that's really fun. okay. so just remember thewhole definition

is, right, "applicationof psychological science all right. the roles of aforensic psychologist. clinician. most forensicpsychologists spend most of theirtime doing this. in other words,they examine people. they look at people,they evaluate people, they write reportsabout people.

i'll skip downto treator. treator is a veryspecific type of, um... work. if someone's found notcompetent to stand trial-- and you'll know what thatmeans when we leave today-- sometimes, youhave to treat them until they becomecompetent. and then,a consultant. that's stuff that'sall over the place.

interviewing witnesses,strategizing, helping attorneys developa cross-examination of an expert witnesspsychologist. jury selection. we'll talk aboutthat, right? you've heard ofthat before? that's reallygot some press. i'm gonna go throughthis quick 'cause i wanna getto the good stuff.

application offorensic psychology-- this is, too, withincriminal proceedings. you can do apretrial application of forensic psychology,competent to stand trial. if you're not competentto stand trial, they can't takeyou to court. in trial, i'll get asked toprovide a conceptualization of why a person would dothis kind of behavior. sentencing-- that mostlyis for federal law

where you can go underneaththe guidelines of sentencing or over the guidelinesof sentencing based on sort of knowing thepsychology of the person. and appeals. i'm doing moreof that, where cases willcome up for appeal. civil litigation,i talked about, family court,i talked about, probate court are thingslike guardianship...

competency to make decisionsabout your medical care, stuff like that. the one thing that youhave to understand about what a forensicpsychologist does is applies principlesof psychology to a particularlegal statute. so, what a well-trainedforensic psychologist does is they go througha training program where they become sortof amateur lawyers.

when i went through my training,i had to read lots of case law. you know anybody who's inlaw school or is a lawyer? they talkabout case law. you have to read all that,and what you have to do is you have to learn howto interpret statute to a certain degree. not like a judgeinterprets statute. but you have to, as aforensic psychologist, understand whatyou're looking at

and what questions you'retrying to answer for the court. criminal proceedings. the pretrial criminalresponsibility-- let's jumpto that guy. whoa, what is that? m.c.l. section 761.21a(1)-- this is the statute in michiganfor criminal responsibility. "if, as a result of mentalillness of mental retardation "as defined in m.c.l.,"blah-blah-blah-blah-blah,

"that person lackssubstantial capacity "either to appreciate the natureand quality or the wrongfulness "of his or her conduct,or to conform his conduct "to the requirementsof the law." what does that mean? basically, what it meansis that if someone has done a crime, did they havea mental problem that would make it so thatthey would not understand

the nature and quality orwrongfulness of their conduct or be able tocontrol their conduct to the requirementsof the law? this is state law. federal law iscalled "insanity." it used to be called"insanity" in michigan but they changed it to"criminal responsibility." i guess that a more politicallycorrect term, i guess. if you read this,it's similar.

"the criminal defenseasserting that at the time "of the commission of theacts constituting the offense, "the defendant, as a resultof severe mental disease "or defect--"i love that, "severe." that's a good thingto put in there. "--was unable to appreciatethe nature and quality "or the wrongfulnessof his acts." okay? basically, it saysabout the same thing.

so, as a forensicpsychologist, what willhappen is... you will get asked to answerthe question of insanity or criminalresponsibility. so i have to do an evaluationand make an opinion whether or not this personappreciated the nature and quality or wrongfulnessof their conduct, or could conform theirconduct to the requirements of the law.

if you are found-- andif this goes to court and becomesa big trial, you could be found "notguilty by reason of insanity" or "not guilty due to a lackof criminal responsibility." you've heard about thesecases before, right? insanity cases? how oftendoes it work? does anybody know? want to take a guess?go ahead.

>> about 1 outof 100 times. >> anybody elsehave any ideas? >> (indistinct).>> what's that? >> less than 1%.>> you guys are great! yeah, less than 1%. in 1998, theydid a big study and 37% of the publicthought-- er, um.... what was it,'98, '99? and people-- the study saidthat most people thought 37%

of the time,it worked. so this is a hardthing to pull off. what makes thisdifficult to assess as a forensicpsychologist is, if someonecommitted a crime on may 14th at 2:30in the morning, 2009, and now i see themon december 10th, i have to try and getsome understanding of their state of mind at thetime of the alleged crime.

that's the tough part ofapplying this statute. there are a lot of famous casesthat went nowhere with this. jack ruby. you guys know whohe is, right? he shot kennedy. they went for aninsanity defense. sirhan sirhanshot bobby kennedy, they went for aninsanity defense. john wayne gacy--remember him?

he was the guy in chicagowho'd dress up as a clown and had 33 bodiesunderneath his house. he tried--didn't work. jeffrey dahmer wentfor this-- didn't work. so you guys area smarter crowd than our general americanpublic, i can tell. you understand thatthis is something that does nothappen very often. it may be assertedfrom time to time.

so it's not really alegal loophole, okay? let me give you anexample of cases i've had where the person was insaneand the person wasn't. um... i'll give you oneswhere they were insane. when i was in thefederal bureau prisons, we had a guy whowalked up to the-- he was mentally ill, got out of thepsychiatric hospital

and, an hour later,went to the bank and said, "you sobsgive me all my money "or i'm blowingthis bank up. "give memy money." they hand hima bag of money. he walks across thestreet to mcdonald's, gets a coupleof egg mcmuffins, goes out and sits on thepicnic table in front. puts the bagof money--

by the way, he walksinto mcdonald's and puts the bag of moneyright on the counter. pulls out a couple ofdollars out of there, goes and sits in thepicnic table in the front of the restaurant, puts his bag of money andstarts to eat his egg mcmuffins when the copsshow up, okay? this guy obviously didn'thave a good understanding of the nature andquality and wrongfulness

of going into a bankand demanding money or it'll beblown up. obviously, he didn't because hedidn't even try to get away, okay? a local case, and i'm notviolating confidentiality because this is something thatwas in the court proceedings. have you heard aboutthe local case where there was a federal agentwho was stealing identities? it was a fewyears ago.

i had to examine her andwent into court on that, and, um... she is a federal agent and wouldwalk up with a stolen atm card that she took outof someone's mail to an atm withthe camera there, put it inand get $20. so obviously, understandingthe nature and quality and wrongfulness of herconduct wasn't operating on that particularinstance

because look at the highprobability of being caught... but she justdidn't get it. now, what if you get drunkand you black out? right? "i don't remember." voluntary intoxication basicallytakes this off the table. if you get really wastedand do something really bad and don'tremember it, you're not gonna beable to apply this.

that one stuck arounda long time in canada but i think they got ridof it about 10 years ago. if you have a physicianprescribing you medications and they're prescribing youmedications that are way beyond what you should be getting,this will apply. the federal agenti spoke about-- and this is all inthe court record and actually it wasall in the media, too-- was on a ton ofpain medications.

and really, um, really didnot know right from wrong. any quick questionson this one? i don't know how muchpeople know about this, but that'skinda the gist. so i will get thesequestions from time to time. the forensic centerin ann arbor does most of thesefor the state, but i'll getas a second opinion, or some federal stuff iget directly from the feds

because they found outi was in town. they called me up one day--"hey, didn't you use "to work for us?"i said, "yeah." and they said, "canwe send people to you "instead ofnorth carolina?" so i did someof those. competency tostand trial-- yeah? >> a question onthat last one. how does a plea fortemporary insanity work,

if the drunkennessdoesn't work? is it just, like,with medication then? >> temporary insanity, andpermanent insanity, really, it's sort ofa moot point. they use to talk abouttemporary insanity... but now it'sjust insanity. because at the-- what we'retalking about is, at the time, your mental state. so i suppose someone could beinsane for a long period of time

but, um, they use tohave that delineation but they don'treally anymore. 'cause you just focus onthe specific incident. competency tostand trial, i'll run throughthis quick. "a defendant to acriminal charge "shall be presumedcompetent to stand trial. "he shall be determinedincompetent to stand trial "only if he is incapable becauseof his or her mental condition

"or understanding the natureand object," blah-blah-blah, "of the proceedingsagainst him "or of assisting in hisdefense in a rational manner." so what competencyreally talks to-- this is pretrial. you go in and if theyallege you're not competent to stand trial, that means you would notbe able to understand the nature and objectof the proceedings,

and you wouldn't be able tohelp assist your defense. and it has to be because ofa mental disease or defect. you need to have aserious mental illness or mental retardationfits this, too. i do a lot more ofthis type of work. if you're found notcompetent to stand trial, they can't charge youwith a criminal-- um, they can't chargeyou, criminally. so if you findsomeone not competent,

what you also have to do, asthe forensic psychologist, is try to determineand provide an opinion about the chances of thembeing restored to competency within 15 months. so if someone isreally mentally ill and you get them onthe right medications, would they be ableto meet this standard? and then, it's called a"competency restoration." if a person hasan iq of 68,

which means they'rementally retarded, can you teach them enoughabout what happens in court through aneducational program? competency restoration. there are two statesin the country that have extensive, greatcompetency restoration programs. i mean,well-funded. you go live therefor nine months, you go to classeveryday.

do you wanna guess whattwo states have that? (indistinct). i'll tell youone-- texas. you know whatthe other one is? florida, right. you know why? you gotta havesomeone competent before you can putthem to death. so if you havea death penalty,

you better have a goodcompetency restoration program. that's interesting,isn't it? one thing that i'lldo in this area that... gets to be very, very,very complicated is juvenile competency. you're 14, youhave an iq of 72, and you sexually molesteda five-year-old. are you competentto stand trial? well, we don't have--no states that i'm aware of--

well, i shouldn'tsay that. most states do nothave a specific statute for juvenile competency. so the courts relyon the adult's statute. so if you're 14 andcharged with a crime, you have to meetthis threshold. i do a lotof those. when i first landed here inprivate practice eight years ago and with my background,

i had someone callme up and say, "geez, i've got this 13-year-oldthat they're trying to basically "put away for10 years. "i don't know if theyunderstand what's going on." so i did some homeworkand tailored some things and wrote some articlesabout juvenile competency, and now i get a lot of thiskind of work all over the state. and then,i testify. this is sort ofa local case,

a different county--not kent county. seven-year-oldcharged with arson i-- arson in thefirst degree. you know what the-- uh,the penalty for arson i can be, um--actually i think-- no. no, that onedoesn't go life but you can get up to40 years in prison. he was playing with a lighterin the babysitter's trailer and started acloset on fire.

so arson i--so i got the referral and i looked atthe date of birth, and i calledthe lawyer up. i said, "is thisdate of birth right?" he said, "yeah." so i said, "what are theygonna do with a seven-year-old "if they convict him? "where are they gonnasend him for prison?" anyway, i said hewasn't competent.

that was sortof a slam dunk. because then i did his iqand that was kinda low, and he had the mental ageof a four-year-old. can four-year-olds gointo court and understand go on the stand and testifyto defend themselves? you know, i'm testifying in acase friday with a 10-year-old. the problem with these casesis a lot of them are sex cases. so you have a 10-year-oldthat molests a four-year-old. and now, there's a newprosecutor in this one county

who doesn't believe in"not competent to stand trial." so. i'll be drivinga lot up there. so i guess you'regetting the gist that a lot of it has to do withhaving a technical understanding of the law and applyingpsychological principles to it. i'll do acouple more. guardianship is a person--an incapacitated person. you've gotcriteria.

so i look atthis question, i do the examination andi try to answer a, b, or c. and guardianship isalways interesting because you have to lookat all the medications, their dosage, and try todecide if any of these effects of the medication hason the person's behavior and are theyincapacitated. i'm doing a lotmore of these now-- these areprobate court.

sometimes-- here's mypessimistic jaded piece-- sometimes legislatures,state legislatures, make weird laws thateither you can't apply-- my greatest story was-- i wastalking about this at lunch-- when i worked in theiowa prison system and i went to schoolin iowa city. i did my dissertation onsex offenders of children, and a legislatorcalled me up and said, "hey, i understandyou work at the prison

"and that you're doing aresearch study on pedophiles." i said, "yeah." he said, "come talk to us'cause we're gonna do "a civil commitment lawfor sexual predators." this was inthe mid-'90s where, back then, the ideawas all these states were gonna takeand make a law where if you werea sex offender, they would keep youforever in prison.

so i went and talked toa bunch of legislators, and they totally disregardedeverything i had to say, and made a law aboutcivil commitment for sex offenders. and then, they built a$3 million treatment facility. a few years later, i talked tosomeone i use to work with who was on the groundswhere the facility was and, in five years, theway the wrote the law, only two people couldsit in that facility.

so they made this law,spent a bunch of money. so here's the newest michiganone that's interesting. "sexually delinquent person." this came out 2004,i believe. "the term 'sexually delinquentperson' when used in this act "shall mean any personwhose sexual behavior "is characterized byrepetitive or compulsive acts "which indicate adisregard of consequences "or the recognizedrights of others,

"or by use of force uponanother person in attempting "sex relations of eitherheterosexual or homosexual--" i don't know whythat's in there. must've been arepublican thing. (all laughing) "or by the commissionof sex--" i shouldn't say that--republican country. (laughing)does it really matter, if you attempt sexualrelations by force,

if it's heterosexualor homosexual? anyway. my first group ofpeople i fit in. "or by the commissionof sexual aggression "against childrenunder the age of 16." what happens is,is they can find you under the sexuallydelinquent person act. they can go outside the normalparameters of sentencing and they can sentenceyou to life in prison.

so i got a bunch ofthese evaluations. they said, "jeff, they'regoing for sexual delinquent "on this guy. "he's been arrested four timesfor exposing himself. "they're threatening toput him in prison forever." well, the way thatthis is written, anyone who gets convictedof more than one sex crime falls within this. where talked about"compulsive acts."

"repetitive orcompulsive acts." so if you have aperson that has-- you've heard offlashers, right? they've beenaround forever. i don't do that. see, i'm not very goodat that raincoat thing. but if you have a guywho flashes someone who has three countsof flashing, should they go toprison forever?

i mean, you know, it'ssort of a moral question or an ethicalquestion. under this statute,they could. by the way, those guys areeasy to treat, by the way. you don't need tospend $50,000 a year to put them away. and what they dois not good, and it can, i suppose,cause trauma in people, but they'reeasy to treat.

so, you know. anyway, so i gota bunch of these. i must've got 10 of themwithin a couple of months. well, every one of them metthe criteria for this law... every one of them if they hadmore than one sex offense. and a lot of them wereindecent exposure people. or if you've had any actsof sexual aggression-- more than one-- against achild under the age of 16. so some peoplemay argue,

"hey, if you've molested andbeen convicted of molesting "more than one kid, youshould go away forever." okay, but thisis the one where it really scoopedup a lot of people. so i don't getthose anymore. they don'ttry anymore. you getting bored of allthe legal mumbo-jumbo? all right--buh-bum! profiling.

everybody wants to knowabout that, right? here's the part wherei disappoint everybody because what happens in thereal world versus on tv a lot of times is notthe same, all right? profiling has beenaround since the '50s... and it's used by peoplethat call themselves "behavioral scientists." that can be justabout anybody. there are fbi agents whohave bachelor's degrees

in literature from syracuse whobecome behavioral scientists. it's often based onactuarial data sets. what that means is-- insurance companies useactuarial data sets. insurance companies, years ago,came up with this idea, if you drivea red car, you're more likely toget in an accident than if you drivea green car. so if you drive a red car,they upped your rates.

i don't think theycan do that anymore. based on hugeamounts of-- well, it's based onstatistics of groups and that's how the fbigot into this business. so they did an actuarialdata set on serial killers. guess what? there aren't a lotof serial killers well, that arecaught, right? and if you've takenstatistics yet,

you'll understand thatin order to get data that's really relevant, youneed to have huge samples. the insurance companywith the red car thing had, you know, a1 million customer data set. you know, uh,serial killers? 400. played up infiction, sorry. this is in a lot of the movieswhere they do profiling. the media-- i should put thatthe media plays up this, too--

the media reallyplays this up, okay? i've seen one job for apsychologist in 20 years that talkedabout profiling. so, we talked about thefbi behavioral science unit-- not that thisis a bad idea but the way it's usedcan be the problem. it's used to tryto catch bad guys. can not use incriminal proceedings. this is a big,big no-no

and judges go crazy when you get less thanadequately trained psychologists who call themselves"forensic psychologists," to go in andtry to say, "i know this guy is guiltybecause of his profile." there may be a statute nowabout criminal profiling and you can'tuse it in courts. but i'll dothings like, "provide a conceptualizationof this person."

and they say, "you can'tdo that-- it's profiling." so not an empiricallyvalidated technique. that means it's notscientifically proven or sound-- that using profilingis accurate. does it hurt when you'retrying to catch guys? that's arguable,right? we have criminaljustice majors here? some criticism is that itdoesn't work any better than regular goodold detective work.

concern aboutfalse positives. you know this term"false positive"? you're considered, um, the typeof person and it's not true. richard jewell-- do youremember richard jewell? he was the security guard atthe atlanta olympic games. remember the backpackthat blew up? i think-- did itkill some people? i know it injureda lot of people. if you allremember that--

i can't remember whatyear that olympics was. it was the olympicsin atlanta. richard jewellspotted a backpack, he was a security guard,and it blew up. i think it killeda couple of people and injured a bunchof people. the fbi did a profileand they said, "it's a white male betweenthe ages of 35 and 40 "who lives with his mother,is likely overweight,

"has a strong desire tobe a law enforcement." so they started lookingat richard jewell. i don't know how itgot out to the press. so then, the press was followingrichard jewell around. do you remember this? he wasn't the guy. the guy who did it-- and i might havethe details wrong-- was, um--

i think it was a regular whiteguy, whatever that means, who i think-- did he die up inthe mountains of north carolina or something? he was part of a-- and i knowi'm just piecing this together and i'm wrongprobably-- i think he was part of a kindareal strong fundamentalist christian group. i mean stronglike, you know, trying to blow peopleup for god's purpose.

you know, fanatical--how does that sound? fanatical group and didn'tquite fit the profile that theycame up with. so this is alwaysa concern. you notice they alwayssay it's white males between 35 and 40? who was the killerin atlanta? the serial killerin atlanta who was killingchildren 20 years ago?

he ended up being anafrican-american guy who lived inthe neighborhood but they profiled him as awhite guy between 30 and 35 who lives with his mother,has never had an adult-- you know. so that's abig concern. questionsabout profiling? hope i didn't crushdreams of wanting to be a criminal profiler...

but it's something that'splayed up a lot in the media and in fiction, but asfar as day to day work of a forensicpsychologist, profiling, in fact,is really discouraged. 'cause imagine if you were theperson that fit that profile all the time likerichard jewell and then they'refollowing you around? risk assessment-- here'san interesting area. and i'll get through thisstuff really quick here

'cause i wanna move on to somemore consultant-type stuff. this is an interesting area--risk to sexually offend. risk for violence--institutional, domestic, workplace, school. risk to re-offend. i had a bunchof referrals. by the way, none of theseare based in statute. so what do you do as theforensic psychologist? you look at the literatureon people who sexually offend

and you try to provide someopinion of the person's risk. i had a bunch ofcases years ago of public schoolteachers, males, who ended up gettingcaught up in a sex sting in riverside park. they would, um-- apparently thatwas a place where they could haveanonymous sexual encounters

with other men, and a lot ofthese guys were married, been working in the schoolsystems for years and years, "teacher of the year"types, and, all of a sudden,they come onto a cop in the publicbathroom. well, then what happens is,is a lot of parents get up in arms 'causeit hits the media, and say, "this guy'sgonna molest our kids." and the schools say,"well, we're gonna fire you."

but they can't. so i got a bunch of cases wherei had to provide an opinion about this person'srisk to sexually offend against children. and, um, most of them werenot a risk to children because they were havingsex with other men in public bathrooms. in fact, here'sa real statistic. if you are ahomosexual male,

statistically you're lesslikely to molest a child than a heterosexual male. isn't thatinteresting? so it kinda blows the stereotypeaway that people may hold. so i had a bunchof those cases. risk for violence,institutional. "when i get back here--"don't call the cops. "i'm coming back to grcctomorrow with a gun "and i'm gonna do avirginia tech thing."

actual case i hadfrom this campus. the police,the institution, says this person is notallowed back on campus. are they a risk forviolence against others? bomb threats. i had a bomb threat guyoutta grcc that i had to evaluatefor the courts. workplace, right? "going postal"-- is thatthe term you hear now?

is that still a term thatpeople use anymore, right? 'cause of the postal workerswho would go in and shoot up the placeand kill people. so i'll get that,you know? someone'llmake a threat and the employer takesit very serious, okay? these are a lot times folksthat they're trying to release from prison or jail and you have toassess their risk.

i'm gonna talk very,very briefly. is this all rightfor you guys? are you learningsome things? are you bored? if you're bored,tell me. i'm gonna talk just reallybriefly about family law. i hope no one in thisroom, i've evaluated. unless i said goodthings about you. i'll get referrals for divorceand custody evaluations.

two people are getting divorced,or they've been divorced, and now they're fightingover custody of the kids. those aren't pretty. custody evaluation, usuallyinterview mom, dad, all the kids. and yes, you doapply a statute. michigan childcustody act-- these are the12 factors that the court considers indeciding how to do custody

with kids. so a psychologist comes inand weighs in an opinion on all of these. where is theone i like? "the moral fitness ofthe parents involved." that's a cool one. here's the one wherethe psychologist really puts a lot of work into--the mental and physical health of the partiesinvolved.

more often, i'll dowhat's called "abilityto parent" evaluations... or "capacity to parent." does this person haveany mental illness, any problems, or any activesubstance abuse problems? does this personhave an adequate and appropriate understandingof child development of parenting? and if there are any deficitsor problems outlined above, how does it affect hisor her ability to parent?

nasty divorces, maybe someof you have been into it. they get nasty, and momsays dad's crazy, dad saysmom's crazy. judge'll say,"get this figured out." we do these. turns out they'reboth okay, they're just in a bad situationand they're just acting nasty to each other. well, then, when side abrings it up again,

the judge says,"that's it-- we covered this." so a lot of thejudges like these. i like doingthese, too. i don't like these. i don't like psychologiststrying to weigh in on these types of-- these are expensiveto do, too. so i'll doa lot of these. these will also get used inchild neglected abuse cases--

someone's been accusedof abusing their child. they'll want to know abouttheir ability to parent and if thiscomes back bad, a lot of times they'll try toterminate a parent's rights-- the court will. all right,consultant. i talked a little bitabout consultant role. that's aninteresting area. the occupation ofjury consultant

versustrial consultant. a jury consultant helpsyou pick the jury. this came aroundin the 1970s and a lot of socialpsychologists. by the way, if you endup going to grad school in psychology, go find the socialpsychology students. they're always the cooleststudents-- you ever notice that? they like to party--they're a lot of fun,

social psychologists.(audience laughing) they really are. this gained a lotof media attention-- william kennedy smith. remember,they hired one. and o.j., right? oop, herewe go again. there are few if anyconvincing demonstrations that scientificjury selection

is more effective thanroutine jury selection. can you buya jury? mmm, maybe. probably not. a lot of folks makemoney doing this. it got a lot ofmedia attention. you talk to any attorneywho's selected juries, they said you canjust never predict-- you can think ofall these things.

i've been hired tointerview witnesses and look at the juryquestionnaires, i mean, and interview potential jurorsto be involved in that. you justnever know. there's reallyno method. although, i think the o.j.trial was very interesting because it's moremy little theory-- johnny cochran was ableto help, in my opinion, the juries have an emotionalresponse to the issue-- racism--

and there's been an argumentthat they voted on that rather thanthe evidence. i don't know if o.j.did it or not, but interesting idea. couple of other things you'lldo as a forensic psychologist-- specializedexpert witness. i'll testify in a lot of thethings i already presented, but i'll testify on thingslike bonding and attachment to children.

do we want this child,who's two, to do a 50/50 custody splitwith mom in arizona and dad in michigan? how's that gonna effectbonding and attachment? some other... false allegationsof sexual abuse-- that's aninteresting one. i testified inan appeals case where these allegationsof sexual abuse--

you look at theliterature, by the way. you know, theresearch literature, what's involved in falseallegations of sexual abuse? did this particularscenario show a lot of thosesimilar characteristics? and then, the judgeor jury can decide. forensicrecord review-- this is the one ireally like doing. you get to scrutinizepeople's work.

so a therapistcomes along and tried to doforensic psychology stuff with no training, they go into court andthey muddy the waters or they come up with conclusionsthat are just not based in science. there's a lot ofthat out there. and i will reviewthe records and testify or helpthe attorneys

get their witness thrown outor how to cross-examine. and then,trial prep. helping theattorney strategize, preparation forcross-examination of expert witnesses. there are a lot ofother things involved in forensicpsychology, right? let's go back aroundthe horn here. i taught a whole course onthis one time, by the way.

you know, let me tellyou quickly how i gotinvolved in this. i was working as a--i was a grad student at universityof iowa, and my adviserjohn said, "jeff, i think you shouldgo work at the prison "for a semester." i said, "why would iwant to do that, john?" "there's just somethingabout you that i think "you'd do well inthat environment."

(audience laughing) i don't knowwhat that means, but i went there and i--is this a weird term? i sorta love withhow fascinating it is about why peoplemistreat each other. and i stayed therethree years, interned there, went as a prison psychologistfor seven years, and now came intoprivate practice

and i'm stillmaking a living off of peoplemistreating each other. to be honest with you,it never gets boring, that's for sure--it's never boring. if you look at howbroad the field is, there's all kindsof different stuff. i've done most of thesebut, every once in a while, a new onewill come up. the civil litigation oneis pretty interesting,

when you're tryingto sue other people and talk about emotionaldistress and damage. i had a big geoffrey fiegercase-- you guys know him? a psychologist with the michigandepartment of corrections is being sued bygeoffrey fieger because of aninmate death. so i had toevaluate his work and provide an affidavitwhich is a written opinion that they can useas evidence in court

about what thepsychologist did. so, it's a rapidlyexpanding field. my littlecriticism is, there's a lot of peoplethat try to do this work and they haven't hadadequate training and they end upcausing a lot of problems, particularly when we getinto the family law issues. or fitness to carry a firearm--i won't do these anymore. the law isjust too weird

and the peoplewho end up coming-- this is awful to say-- thepeople that the court feels need to have a psychologicalevaluation to carry a firearm, probably shouldn'tbe carrying a firearm 'cause you usually needto have reasons for that. you know, the court hasto have reasons for that. so i don't evendo those anymore. they're justnot worth it. i don't know of anybody intown that's doing them, now.

i went an hourand five minutes. or no, i went--what did i go? almost 45 minutes. i ran through everything'cause i wanna just open it up for questions. questions about anything,questions about all of this, questions about, "howmuch do you drink, jeff, "after dealing withthese people everyday?" >> (indistinct).

>> yeah.>> what would it look like? >> hang onjust a second. because we'rerecording this, uh, for our consumption later, we need to make sure ourquestions are asked into the microphone so thatthe audio can be picked up on the tape. so it'll take alittle bit longer, but we'll be shuttlingthe microphone around.

you'll all get an opportunityto ask your questions. >> well, mike, you should berunning up and down the thing like phil donahueused to do. yeah.>> (indistinct). >> the career path forforensic psychologists. first of all, you're gonnaneed to go to graduate school. some areas inforensic psychology you can do quite wellwith a master's degree. correctional psychology--you can go work in prisons.

typically, if you're going tobe providing expert testimony which has to dowith a lot of these, most of the time, you'dwanna look at getting a phd or a psy.d, adoctorate in psychology. you can dowith a master's but you'll get a lotmore flak from attorneys. there are some folks intown with master's degrees that testify in court anddo a good job in this. they've had reallygood training.

so, you've got theacademic training. you need to havea license, right? you probably need tobe a psychologist rather than asocial worker 'cause psychologists understandpsychological testing. a lot of other fields likelicensed professional counselor and social workers... really don't gettraining in testing 'cause, for a lot of these,you have to do

psychological testing. and then, what you need to dois if you can get an internship. that's the key 'cause you'll get in astructured training program. some people retool. they go and theybecome therapists at a community collegecounseling center and say, "i want to be aforensic psychology." so they end uptaking a lot of--

they reada lot of books, take sanctionedcourse work through americanpsychological association or some of theforensic outfits, and then they are able toget competent in these. but if you'regonna go that route, you probably need to havesome peer supervision by someone whodoes this work and who's had specifictraining in it.

so it's quitea process-- you know, a phdis gonna take you all together10 years... but itcan be done. there's a lot of need forpeople to do this work in a goodcompetent way. good question. >> what we're gonnado is, uh, you can ask your questionand then frank-- dr. conner--

is gonna repeat it so wedon't have to keep running the microphoneback and forth. >> we've got one here. what's yourquestion? >> when you were talking aboutjuvenile competence and-- i'm just curious, do you determine if they'recompetent to stand trial or if they're competentto know the law? and then, like,when they get older,

is there somethingwhere they say, "okay, now they'reolder, we can..." >> so the question isaround juvenile competence. when you're evaluating it,what are you looking at? >> great question. juvenile competenceis a funny one. like i said, there's nostatute in michigan, in most states, aboutjuvenile competence. so the adult statutes say"mental disease or defect."

in the case, though,that's usually defined as a seriousmental illness, schizophrenia,bipolar disorder, stuff like that...or mental retardation. so what if youget a 10-year-old who's notmentally retarded and they don't havemental illness? but they're 10. or they're seven.

one thing that thecase law allows you to do is to talk aboutemotional maturity. frustration tolerance ispart of the developmental age of the child. eight-year-olds can be pushedaround by adults on the stand. the case i thinki'm gonna testify in-- no, i got another casei'm gonna testify in with this prosecutorwho doesn't like my work. is, um, "can a nine-year-oldhave the emotional maturity

"to sit in courtand be on the stand "for cross-examination?" not many ofthem, okay. so with juvenile competency,i get a little more leeway. that can bedangerous, so you sorta need toknow what you're doing. so juvenile competency, those are the thingsi look at. competentto stand trial

or competent tounderstand the law? competent to stand trialis the big part. understanding the lawis a piece of it. understandingthe law, being able to behaveappropriately in the courtroom. if you have a kid who'snine and has adhd and is not onany medications, is he payingattention, right? so those are otherthings you look at.

so the juvenile, you geta little bit more leeway and the judges tendto let that in, and the case lawsupports it, too. but great question. >> right. >> so the question is,with john wayne gacy, how is killing33 people not insane? >> okay. did john wayne--

now, see, you're getting into anarea which is really fascinating for what a forensicpsychologist has to do. you go, "jeff, how can youtalk to people about this stuff "all day and it doesn'tdrive you batty?" because my job'svery specific. what he did wasreprehensible. i mean, i've talked to peoplewho've killed their own children in all kinds of bad waysi won't share with you. but all i haveto answer,

"did john wayne gacy appreciatethe nature and quality "or the wrongfulnessof his acts," okay? and "was there amental disease or... "or was he able toconform his conduct "to the requirementsof the law?" i don't know a lot ofspecifics about the gacy case, but here's what i doknow that i can tell you. he plannedthese, okay? he tried tocover them up.

he hid the bodies whenthey asked him about it. he said,"i didn't do that." so you argue that he understoodthe nature and quality or the wrongfulnessof his acts, regardless of howreprehensible they were. he's a sociopath--i could talk about sociopaths. now, some people wouldsay did he have this urge or this compulsion torape and kill children that he couldn'tcontrol?

that's a high hurdleto get over. you have to attach itto a mental illness. so what mental illnessresults in a symptom where you have to rapeand kill children? there is none. so you have to attacheverything to a symptom of a mental diseaseor a defect. case law says a "mentalillness or mental retardation." sociopath.

i'll tell you, that's whata lot of serial killers are. sociopaths do not havea connection to people like mostof us do. i heard agreat example. for a sociopath topunch you in the face, it'd be likepunching a board. and here,i'll get gross. how can sociopathscut people up? cut people up?

have you ever cut achicken breast in half? did you cut yoursandwich in half today? that's the same thingfor a sociopath. they don't havethat connection. cutting a person'shead off-- sorry-- is like cutting a pieceof chicken in half. there's noconnection. "sociopath" isnot a diagnosis. if it becamea diagnosis,

what would that do to insanitydefenses for serial killers? so anyway, you have toattach it to a symptom of a mental illness. so regardless of how awfulthe thing is they did-- i know you're going,"this person must be crazy "to do somethinglike that." well, is it a diagnosablemental illness? and i'll tell you, anytimethat someone plans it and tries tocover it up,

they've kinda taken this offthe table most of the time, unless their planningit and covering it up is based on adelusion, you know? did i answeryour question? >> for temporaryinsanity, what about whena guy comes home or a woman comes home andfinds their significant other having an affair andattacks that person? >> great.>> temporary--

like an act of passionwhere you come home, you find your spouse inbed with somebody else and you killthem both. >> i don't have that statutein front of me-- guess what? act of passion-- there is an actual lawabout an act of passion. now, in theold days-- i'll talk very briefly'cause you know i'm a phd-- i talk more.

i like to hearmyself talk. >> why are you laughing? >> insanity and lack ofcriminal responsibility became much more well-definedin the early 1980s. for example, beforethe early '80s, in a lot of states, theburden of proof for insanity was on the, um,prosecution. what that means isthe prosecution had to proveyou're sane.

they lost alot of cases... the harvey milk"twinkie defense." they couldn't provethe guy was sane. the burden of proofshifted in most states, and it's-- in all states, nowit's shifted onto the defense. so the defense has to provethe person was insane. and act of passionwhich is you walk in on your spouse and they'rein bed with someone else and you flip out.

"i blacked out--i snapped." isn't there one of theseshows called "snapped"? that use to work inthe older insanity laws. they got rid of that, butit's still around in michigan. you can only use itin sentencing now. so i walk inon my wife and kill the guy thatshe's sleeping with-- act of passion. all right, am icriminally responsible?

well, did i know that natureand consequences of my actions? yeah, i tried to buryhim in the backyard. could i conform my conduct tothe requirements of the law? well, was there a mentalillness that was involved in my, you know,snapping? probably not a symptomof a mental illness. there's not, you know, like,"finding your spouse in bed "with somebody else"rage syndrome. that doesn'texist, right?

but what will happen is,is i cut a deal, and i say,"okay, i'm guilty. "sentence me,judge." and the attorney sends youto a forensic psychologist... and i pull up the ideaof "act of passion" and evaluate the personto see if it was based on an actof passion. so i sayit was. you know, the person hadbeen cheated on by six people

in the past. you know, they had alittle bit of depression, they had a low self-esteem,and all of this happened, and they just-- it was animpulse that they freaked out and they did something"out of character." that's a thingthey like. then, it goes to the judgeand then the judge decides. and a judge says,"you know what? "that happened to me, too.

(audience laughing)"time served!" or, "you know what?i'm not buying it. "you're getting30 to life." i mean, so it really fallsinto the judge's lap. it's not usedvery often anymore but it used to be part ofthe old insanity stuff. so great question,though-- good stuff. >> i have a question aboutwhen you were talking about parentevaluation.

>> so the question isaround parental evaluation, foster care, taking a childout of their biological home. >> um, yeah--boy. and i do quite a bitof work in that field. what'll happen is-- ican give you a scenario-- is a child gets putinto foster care and they're infoster care, and the parent has, say,a substance abuse problem and a little bitof depression.

so the child--within a year, the court has to make a decisionwhether to allow the child to go back or terminate therights of a parent. so the parent typicallyhas a year to shape up. they work a treatment planwith the social service agency. there will be requirementslike you can't use drugs or alcohol if that'sone of your problems. you need to get in therapy andget medication for depression.

so then,after a year, if they haven't gottentheir act together, often times the prosecutor movestowards terminating the rights, and what that allowsis now that child-- if they are successful--they hold a trial and are successful interminating the rights, they'll bring mein to testify. if they're successfulin terminating rights, then that child'seligible for adoption.

now, yeah, funding inthe foster care system has reallyaffected things. i think we're seeingless work coming from social service agenciesin the court with us, now. we use to seea lot of people but there's justnot the money. so we're getting more of thejust really severe cases. or the judges likeour work a lot. there's about four or five ofus in our firm who do this.

the judges reallydepend on it because when you go in and youtestify, you know, as an expert, "yeah, the person's gota cocaine abuse problem. "this is what they needto do to straighten up. "this is what they needto do for treatment. "yeah, they got somedepression-- theyneed to do this." or, "they got apersonality disorder. "it's not lookingso good." you know aboutpersonality disorders.

well, then, if the judgemoves to terminate rights and it comes backin an appeal, they can say, "look,our psychologist-- "this psychologistsaid this." so the judges, they scramblea lot of times to find-- uh, social serviceagencies, i think, scramble to find moneyto pay us to do these. we do them at adiscounted rate because a lot of people inmy practice are old hippies.

they thinkthat's important. see, i'm an '80s kid, so ijust care about me, right? and then-- so they struggleto find the funding, but the judgesreally rely on these 'cause you don't want tosorta do it incomplete and then it comesback in appeal and then kid's already beenadopted by another family and you got to pull out--it's a real mess. so, goodquestion though.

>> when you're determining anindividual's risk to re-offend, what factors doyou account for? >> so the question is aroundhow do you determine the risk to re-offend? >> depends on whatyou're trying to answer. sexually re-offend? what you do, is there'sa lot of great research, particularlythe canadians. the canadians aremiles ahead of us

on all ofthis stuff. the canadians did a bigstudy of 10,000 sex offenders and they made a bunchof variables drop out-- actuarial variables. your age,how does that-- there's ratingsystems you can do. you can actually comeup with an equation that can fit intohigh or low risk. so you've got abunch of factors,

and there's a coupleof different ratingscales that i like, and you check, and if they have thisnumber of factors, they're associated inthe normative sample, we're gettinginto psych testing-- the normative sample withfolks who have re-offended. violence risk,you know, you look at-- there are things called"static variables," unchanging variables.

you never finishedhigh school-- the one i likewith violence is a history of behavioralproblems in elementary school. that's been associatedin the research with potentialfor violence. so thoseare static. there's a lot more work that'sbeing done now on dynamic or changingvariables. that's a tough one,you know?

your levelof depression... how doesthat impact? a lot of times for theforensic psychologist, it's a bit of ajudgement call. you'll get abunch of factors. the one scale that i use forthe sexual offending risk-- they got a sectionat the end, "any other pertinentvariables." well, i know frommy own research

my own experience, you know, there arecertain things thatput you at higher risk to sexually offend. so i mightplug those in. so that stuffgets slippery 'cause there's not astatute to base it on so you gotta goto the research. good question,though. by the way, really quick--the canadians...

they do everythingon this. if you go to prisonin canada, the psychologistthat does your intake has your elementary schoolrecords in front of them. can youimagine that? in canada, if you're goingto be sentenced on a violent or sex crime, you go see a forensicpsychologist and they determine whatwould be-- what do they say--

"in the best interest ofthe canadian citizens." so basically, if you'relow risk to re-offend, they put you oncommunity probation. if you're high riskto re-offend, they put you awayfor a long time. they'll base theirsentencing decisions on that. we don't dothat here in-- at least inmichigan, we don't. so you'll get somereally weird sentences.

i'll tell youthis quick story. it involves sex, soeverybody'll listen. and weird stuff. and this is allin the court record. i saw a guyone time that, um... a 16-year-old boywas at his house and he took a picture ofthe 16-year-old boy's butt with a camera phone. by the way, camera phonesmade me a lot of money

because of everybodytaking pictures of-- and, um, he also hadsex with the kid, too. but it wasn't ille--he was 50-- in his 50s. hope he's not here. it wasn't illegalfor him to have sex with the16-year-old boy because 16 is alegal age of consent, but it was illegal to takea picture of his naked butt. so then the judge sentenced theguy to every weekend in prison

for three years. er, every weekendin jail for three years. it's really weird.(chuckling) so the canadians-- they have alot of structure set on this. yeah, that was one ofthe weirdest sentences i have ever seen. apparently, youonly take pictures of 16-year-old boy's buttson weekends or something-- i don't know.

hope no one's related to thatjudge that did that sentence. but like i said,it doesn't get boring. any other questions? yeah. >> that's a greatbig question. >> so the constitutionalquestion around how does the forensic psychology relatingto fitness to carry a firearm relate to constitutionalright to carry or not carry a firearm?>> okay, great question.

michigan has a very specificstatute and criteria about what you need to bein order to carry a firearm. the forensic psychologistpulls that statute out and looks at it. and i don't remember thecriteria off the top of my head, but they'resorta weird. and you have to look throughand apply the statute to the psychologyof the person. how that goes tobill of rights?

i think the issue would be--um, some people would argue, "well, based onthe bill of rights, "you can't designthese requirements." that would probably be a billof rights advocate's idea, that it's a fundamental rightand you can't put restrictions on that right. so you're kinda gettinginto a legal argument. but the forensic psychologyjust gets to statute and uses thatas a template.

>> i've been doing a lotof research lately and i've run across the defensecalled "homosexual panic." have you everrun into that? >> i've never heard about itbut tell me about it. >> it's where somebody who'scommitted a violent act against a homosexualcan assert it because they weren't inthe right state of mind. so it's basically liketemporary insanity. >> you know what, i haveheard a little bit about--

where is thathappening? >> um, it was used in thecase of matthew shepard-- >> oh, that's right! yeah, i don't know a lotabout that case but, um, i don't think that's-- boy,that's an interesting one. so they're trying to use it assort of a temporary insanity? well,homosexual panic is not a diagnosablemental illness, right? it's not a-- is it amental disease or defect?

well, not based onwhat the case law says. so i don't know howthat could go anywhere. did it work? >> from the articlethat i read, it said that, uh, it didn'tcompletely get them off but it loweredtheir sentence, at least in the caseof matthew shepard, and it listed a coupleother cases, as well. >> it loweredtheir sentence.

so the judgeconsidered that. wow. wow, you know, you wonderif those cases come back on appeals of-- for example,there are certain groups who could fund attorneys to saythat that was an unjust sentence and the personshould get more. but yeah, i don't think theycould use it for insanity or criminalresponsibility because it's not adiagnosable mental illness.

thanks foreducating me. yeah, over here. >> i have a question about,um, something i saw in a news articleor something. apparently, there was a lotof like adolescents-- 13-- teenagers that are sendingnude pictures of each other over phones, and i waswondering how the courts are treatingthat as of-- like technically child pornbut, at the same time,

in their state of mind,it's normal stuff. >> that's agreat question. >> so the questionis around sexting, the idea about 13-year-oldstaking graphic sexual images of each other and sendingit via cell phones. >> yeah, or thehigh school party, breaking in the doorand taking a picture of somebody having sexand send it to everybody and it's oneverybody's facebook?

or videosand stuff? how are the courtshandling it? you know, inmy experience, they're handling it in allkinds of different ways. i had a coupleof cases... and the michigan lawsabout sex abuse are weird. for example--and i was in iowa, it was very stronglywritten in the law that if twopeople have sex

and they're both under thelegal age of consent, 16, there needs to bea five-year age span before you can prosecuteon a sex crime. we don't have that standardset in stone in michigan. so what i'm findingin these cases with the cell phoneimages, um-- i've had a case where theytried to charge a csc but it didn'treally go anywhere. there's a lot of-- i do knowthat there's a lot of arguing

and appeals casesabout that. so it's sort of"the jury's still out" in the way the courtsare handling that. in my experiencedealing with it-- i've probably had aboutfour or five of those cases. what ends up happeningis i'll do an evaluation of the kidwho sent it. and it reallydoesn't say much. and then theyend up settling it...

most of the time,in a nonsexual offense like a disorderlyconduct. i've only had about fouror five experiences with that, but i know that that's onethat's being challenged a lot in courts. i had a bunch of thosea couple of years ago. i haven't hadany lately. so the jury'sstill out. yeah, with technologycoming online-- whoa.

i mean, it's reallythrown a lot of things upside down,you know? did this kid dothis because of-- well, criminal intent. i'll take about thatfor about one minute. criminal intent-- yourability to form intent to do a criminal act. we use to have a thingin michigan law called "diminishedcapacity"

which says because of asymptom of mental illness, your abilityto form intent-- in other words, youwant to do a bad thing-- was diminished. they got ridof this in 1998. (clicks tongue)out the window. what i do in myjuvenile cases is i talk about a thingcalled "culpability" which fits inwith this.

if a childis culpable, that means it was more ofa character-driven behavior and it wasn't based onor influenced by a symptom of mental illness. i'll give youan example. kid standing in lineat meijer with his mom, 13-year-old,adhd. it's the summer weekend sohe's not taking his medication. he reaches out and grabsa girl's butt in line.

i shouldn't say "girl"--she was an adult woman. the adult woman filessexual assault charges against the 13-year-oldand says, "i want that kidprosecuted." well, so "was the kidcriminally responsible?" was the questioni had. well, he knew it wasthe wrong thing to do but one of the hallmark symptomsof adhd is impulsivity and he was very impulsiveand not on his medications.

so i basically wroteabout his culpability. was this really a bad kiddoing who was doing something-- formingcriminal intent? "i want to dosomething bad." or was this a kid who justhad a urge, had adhd, off his medicationand grabbed her? so we kinda did a backdoordiminished capacity 'cause do you want your13-year-old with adhd who grabbed someone's buttin the line at meijer

to be on the sexualoffender registry? and probably not be able to,you know, get a job someday? hope i answeredyour question. yeah? >> so the questionis around, um, prosecuting an adult forgrabbing his son's arm and taking him outof the store. >> well, i think one thingyou're talking about, too, is there's a registry of peoplewho've been substantiated

with doing child abuse--there's a registry. there's a sex offender registry,we all know about that. there's also a registry with thepolice about who've been... so the idea is-- i've hadcases like that, actually, where the persongets on the registry. they have to besubstantiated through child protectiveservices, typically. child protective servicesdoes an assessment and said, "yes,you did abuse."

boom, you're onthe registry. child protective servicesis an interesting area. the way the laws apply withchild protective services are a bit different than theydo with a lot of other things. so a child protectiveservices worker can go throughthe process, put you on theregistry as someone who's beensubstantiated of abuse and that could affect youmaybe in some ways.

i see it indivorces a lot. so, um, yeah. believe me, child protectiveservices send me a lot of work. they do great work, but the way the law appliesto them is a little different than a lot of other mechanismshere in society, so. i hope i answered yourquestion or addressed it. >> if you're evaluating aperson that committed a crime, you know like, say, 3 monthsago or something like that,

what do you do to figureout where they were at when they committedthe crime? >> so the question is howdo you go back and recreate the state theperson was in months after thecrime was committed? that's one of themost difficult things in doing criminalresponsibility evaluations. so what you have to dois you have to find out, "okay, what day was it?""may 15th."

"all right, do youremember that day?" "yeah." "i've got the policereport in front of me," that's a big key. i need to havethe police report. and then,i'll say things, "all right, well,tell me what happened. "what did theysay happened? "what reallyhappened?

"back me up, what wereyou doing before that?" "well, i wasriding my bike." "okay, well, whatabout that morning? "did anything happenthat morning?" "yeah, my sister calledand said that she was gonna "bring the kids over." okay, so what you have to dois you have to create or get an assessment ofthe person's mental state prior to the alleged crime,during the alleged crime,

and after thealleged crime. in a lot of cases, the policereport can help you a lot if the police have been on sceneimmediately after the crime 'cause the policewill make statements about the person'spresentation. so you really have towalk the person back starting with thepolice report and try to get an idea ofwhat happened that day. hear about the truck driverwho was, um--

this was afew years ago-- was picking up male prostituteson division and drugging them, gluing their eyesshut with super glue? do you rememberthat case? it didn't get as much mediaattention as you would think. anyway, i wasthat guy and, um... we created when his runs--where his runs were, what he didthat day, when he went cruising,and all that kinda stuff.

so you start withthe police report and you kinda workboth ways out. that's a tough thingto do-- it really is. particularly if theperson was, um-- forgive me for this phrase--so out of their mind they didn't evenknow what day it way. but typically, you'llhave records of that. sometimes, you don't, so it'sa bit of a judgement call. if you can't makethis determination,

then you have to say they werelikely criminally responsible. you have to basicallyprove that they weren't... as the forensic psychologist,not as the prosecutor. >> we're gonna limit it toa couple more questions. >> come on over here. >> so the questionis how do you go and have the personrelive the day without introducingfalse memories? do i have falsememories up here?

false confessions--that's not quite-- great question. okay, what that reallyboils down to-- there's a bunchof this. the daycare cases where theyfind out that these therapists and these police thatwere interviewing kids were implanting ideas and the kids were acceptingthem as their own. so one thingi have to do,

and i had a lot oftraining on this when i went throughmy training, is when i do aforensic interview, i have to be very conscious thati don't provide the person details that ijust speculate. what i will do is i willhave the police report and i'll say, "well,the police report says "that you were atyour brother's house "and you ordereda pizza, okay?"

i've got that. "well, what happenedbefore that? "what did you geton the pizza?" okay, but i can'tspeculate verbally about whatcould've happened or what wouldnot have happened. so a lot of times, the storyabout what happened that day, i won't havethe whole story. but you makea great point.

you're talking about a thingcalled "leading questions," and if you do get trainedin forensic interview, you learn howto not do that, because, yeah, you canimplant ideas into people, particularly if they're ina compromised mental state at that time. so sometimes, myreports will read, "the person really didn't knowwhat they did beforehand." i don't say whati thought they did.

but, um, greatquestion, though. that's anexcellent question. >> one last question. or not. >> i see you havevarious education-- how do you set yourselfapart from other graduates so that you're available forsome of the specialized cases and thingsyou've done? >> so how do you set yourselfapart as a psychologist,

as a forensicpsychologist? >> well, um, part of itis doing talks like this. by the way, if you everhave questions for me, that's all my stuff if youwant to email me up there. how to setyourself apart. well, uh, part of it isi was very fortunate to have probably some of thebest training in the world. so when you throw out thatforensic bureau prison thing, people pay attentionto that.

the other thing isdoing talks like this. you know, i go and i talk tomichigan bar association. here, i'll talkto various places. word of mouthhelps a lot. internet. not internet--just our website, but i'll get cited incourt of appeals cases. i've had referralswhere people'll say-- you know, anattorney will say,

"we ran a lit searchand your name came up "in a court of appealscase," blah-blah-blah. "do you do thiskind of work?" so word of mouth-- you know,i've been at it now eight years and, um, my name gets passedaround to different people. i don't reallypublish much. you know, i've written a fewarticles here and there. you know, like the barassociation journals and stufflike that,

but mostly it just becomesword of mouth, and reputation, and doing talkslike this. "i saw youdo a talk--" you know, like whenone of you guys send me a referralin three years. "i saw you at grand rapidscommunity college and..." so, that's kinda howyou set yourself apart. >> well, thank you.>> thanks. (applause)>> dr. kieliszewski.