An interesting development in a Criminal Law case.

I thought I'd like to share this interesting piece of Law I came across recently during a trial, in which I was instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service in a Murder case to do an assessment of personality. It may be of interest to psychologists who get involved in criminal work.

Here's the scenario: First an expert (psychiatrist) produced a report for the defense, suggesting that the defendant did not have a personality disorder but did have "abnormal personality traits," (histronic) which he claimed could have influenced the defendant's decision making during the week of the alleged murder of his wife. The psychiatrist did not use any psychometrics.

In my report, I also suggest that there's not a personality disorder but agree there are some personality traits (though not histronic) but say it is unclear what relevance they have, if any. I based my conclusions on my review of the evidence, clinical interviews, STAXI-2, MCMI-III, PAI, WTAR and WASI.

At trial, the question that was raised was: should the jury judge even hear and consider the experts' evidence re personality traits if there is no disorder? A Voir Dire was held to consider this question. It was decided that they should not. This judgement was based on the following pieces of Law: R V Turner (1975): "where no mental abnormality is involved, such matters are within the 'common knowledge and experience' and can be understood by a jury. An Expert's opinion is only admissible to furnish the court with scientific information which is likely outside the experience and knowledge of judge/jury." This decision was upheld in Weightman (1991) and Cole (1995). That is, unless there's an Abnormality of Mind (which translates into a Mental Disorder), the jury can be confused by hearing scientific jargon that seeks to explain a defendants behaviour. They were considered to be perfectly capable of understanding that people with different personality styles will act differently and there can be more than one explanation for someone's behaviour under duress, without resorting to experts.

The judge pronounced the defense psychiatrist's evidence in this case "superfluous, and it trespasses upon matters which are within the jury's normal experience." Consequently, therefore, none of the expert psychiatric or psychological evidence was admissible and the general feeling was the defense psychiatrist should have just concluded No PD, full stop.

The outcome was that the defendant was found Guilty and given a 19 year sentence.

The barrister became aware of this piece of Law only at the very last moment (the night before we were due to testify). It has been very interesting to think how things might have progressed if the experts' testimony had been allowed. The whole area is a fascinating one: for example, in future, will there be less distinction made in Criminal law between Abnormality of Mind (i.e., when a serious disorder is present) and less serious mental/emotional conditions? Is it really within the jury's experience to understand how personality features (though not personality disorder) can account for inappropriate behaviour? Should there be different standards in Criminal v other proceedings? Don't we talk about significant personality feature and their impact on behaviour all the time in child & family work?

Please let us hear your thoughts on this?

Posted on Behalf of Dr Susan Jones by Gareth Nightingale

Meditation Training Promotes Positive Psychology and Better Cellular Health

Researchers at the University of California, Davis, and the University of California, San Francisco have discovered links between the positive psychological changes that occur from meditation and greater Telomerase activity. Telemerase is an enzyme which is important for cellular health and helps rebuild and lengthen telomeres.

Participants in the study also had numerous psychological benefits from meditation training at the same time as decreasing negative emotionality. The effect is attributable to psychological changes that increase the ability for a person to deal with stress and maintain their feelings of well-being.
Clifford Saron an associate research scientist at the University of California, Davis centre for Mind and Brain said "We have found that meditation promotes positive psychological changes and that meditators showing the greatest improvement on various psychological measures had the highest levels of telemerase". The research findings are not suggesting that meditation directly increases telomerase activity and therefore a persons health. But rather that mediation improves a person's psychological well-being and that these changes are connected to telomerase activity in immune cells, which then has the potential to endorse longevity in those cells. Activities that increase a person's sense of well-being will have a huge effect on the most primary aspects of their physiology.

To read the article in full visit: http://clinicallypsyched.com/meditation-positive-psychology-improved-cellular-health-research/