The Social Worker and Forensic Social Work

  • Sana Loue
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines the diverse understandings of forensic social work, the various mechanisms through which social workers engage with the legal system, and, in particular, the growing role of the social worker as an expert witness in legal proceedings. The roles of the social worker in the development of legislation and in advocacy for criminal defendants are also discussed.

References

  1. 32 Corpus juris secundum. (2012a). Burden and manner of presenting proof of competency, § 707.Google Scholar
  2. 32 Corpus juris secundum. (2012b). Generally, § 706.Google Scholar
  3. 32 Corpus juris secundum. (2012c). Scope of requisite expertise; licensing, § 702.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, C. A. (1995). Distinctive dates in social welfare history. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (Vol. 3, 19th ed., pp. 2631–2647). Washington, DC: NASW Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barker, R. L. (1995). The social work dictionary. Washington, DC: NASW Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barker, R. L. (2003). The social work dictionary (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: NASW Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bazemore, G., & Maloney, D. (1994). Rehabilitating community service: Toward restorative service sanctions in a balanced justice system. Federal Probation, 55, 24–35.Google Scholar
  8. Bazemore, G., & Walgrave, L. (1999). Restorative juvenile justice: In search of fundamentals and an outline for systemic reform. In G. Bazemore & L. Walgrave (Eds.), Restorative juvenile justice: Repairing the harm of youth crime (pp. 45–74). New York: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  9. Benjamin, E., & Settle, R. (1965). Forensic social work. Australian Journal of Social Work, 18(1), 21–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braithwaite, J. (1998). Restorative justice. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The handbook of crime and punishment (pp. 323–344). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brennan, T. P., Gdrich, A. E., Tardy, M. J., & McCrea, K. T. (1986). Forensic social work: Practice and vision. Social Casework, 67(6), 340–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brookbanks, W. (2001). Therapeutic justice: Conceiving an ethical framework. Journal of Law & Medicine, 8, 328–341.Google Scholar
  15. Brooks, S. L. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and preventive law in child welfare proceedings: A family systems approach. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 5, 951–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brownell, P., & Roberts, A. R. (2002). A century of social work in criminal justice and correctional settings. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35(2), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bruster, B. E., & Foreman, K. (2012). Mentoring children of prisoners: Program evaluation. Social Work in Public Health, 27(1–2), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Butters, R. P., & Vaughan-Eden, V. (2011). The ethics of practicing forensic social work. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 1, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Campbell, T. (1994). Cross-examining psychologists and psychiatrists as expert witnesses. Michigan Bar Journal, 73, 68–72.Google Scholar
  20. Casey, K., Camara, J., & Wright, N. (2001–2002). Standards of appellate review in the federal circuit: Substance and semantics. Federal Circuit Bar Journal. http://www.stradley.com/~/media/Files/ResourcesLanding/Publications/2001/01/Standards%20of%20Appellate%20Review%20in%20the%20Federal%20Cir__/Files/krc-standards/FileAttachment/krc-standards.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2017.
  21. Clear, T. R. (1994). Harm in American penology: Offenders, victims, and their communities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  22. Denzau, A. T., & Munger, M. C. (1986). Legislators and interest groups: How unorganized interests get represented. American Political Science Review, 80(1), 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dore, M. (2012). Expert qualifications. Law of Toxic Torts, 5(30), 4. Clark Boardman Callaghan.Google Scholar
  24. Faigman, D., Blumenthal, J., Cheng, E., Mnookin, J., Murphy, E., & Sanders, J. (2011). Bases of exclusion—Lack of qualifications. Modern Science Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, 3(26), 13.Google Scholar
  25. Galowitz, P. (1998–1999). Collaboration between lawyers and social workers: Re-examining the nature and potential of the relationship. Fordham Law Review, 67, 2123–2164.Google Scholar
  26. Green, G., Thorpe, J., & Traupmann, M. (2005). The sprawling thicket: Knowledge and specialization in forensic social work. Australian Social Work, 58(2), 142–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guin, C. G., Noble, D. N., & Merrill, T. S. (2003). From misery to mission: Forensic social workers on multidisciplinary mitigation teams. Social Work, 48(3), 362–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kollman, K. (1998). Outside lobbying: Public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kress, K. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the resolution of value conflicts: What we can realistically expect, in practice, from theory. Behavioral Science & Law, 17, 555–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lanzer, I. A. (1948). Forensic social care work: An analytical survey. Social Case Work, 39, 34–48.Google Scholar
  31. Lautenberg, F. (1993, May 3). Congressional record.Google Scholar
  32. LFA Group. (2009). Reentry unit social work services program evaluation. San Francisco: Author. http://sfpublicdefender.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/ 2009/05/reentry-unit-program-evaluation.pdf. Accessed 02 June 2017.
  33. Loue, S. (1999). Forensic epidemiology: A comprehensive guide for legal and epidemiology professionals. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Loue, S. (2009). Forensic epidemiology: Integrating epidemiology and law enforcement. New York: Jones and Bartlett.Google Scholar
  35. Loue, S. (2012). Parentally-mandated religious healing for children: A therapeutic jurisprudence approach. Journal of Law and Religion, 27(2), 397–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loue, S. (Ed.). (2013). Forensic epidemiology in the global context. New York: Springer Science+Business.Google Scholar
  37. Marshall, T. F. (1996). The evolution of restorative justice in Britain. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 4(4), 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maschi, T., & Killian, M. L. (2011). The evolution of forensic social work in the United States: Implications for 21st century practice. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 1, 8–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCold, P. (2000). Toward a holistic vision of restorative juvenile justice: A reply to the maximalist mode. Contemporary Justice Review, 3, 357–414.Google Scholar
  40. Munson, C. (2011). Forensic social work practice standards: Definition and specification. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 1, 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. National Association of Social Workers. (2017). Lobbying “do’s” and “don’t’s.” https://www.socialworkers.org/advocacy/resources/do_dont.asp. Accessed 14 May 2017.
  42. National Association of Social Workers California Chapter. (n.d.). Legislative lobby days (LLD event). http://www.naswca.org/?page=164. Accessed 14 May 2017.
  43. National Organization of Forensic Social Work. (n.d.). What is forensic social work? http://nofsw.org/?page_id=10. Accessed 17 May 2017.
  44. Odiah, C. (2004). Impact of the adversary system on forensic social work practice: Threat to therapeutic alliance and fiduciary relation. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4(4), 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Robbins, S. P., Vaughan-Eden, V., & Maschi, T. (2015). From the editor—It’s not CSI: The importance of forensics for social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 51, 421–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roberts, A. R., & Brownell, P. (1999). A century of forensic social work: Bridging the past to the present. Social Work, 44(4), 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sapir, G. (2007). Qualifying the expert witness: A practical voir dire. Forensic Magazine. http://www.forensicmag.com/article/qualifying-expert-witness-practical-voir-dire?page=0,0. Accessed 06 October 2012.
  48. Schlozman, K. L., & Tierney, J. T. (1986). Organized interest and American democracy. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Schma, W. G. (2003). Therapeutic jurisprudence. Michigan Bar Journal, 82, 25–27.Google Scholar
  50. Sinclair, B. (1997). Unorthodox lawmaking: New legislative processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Slobogan, C. (1995). Therapeutic jurisprudence: Five dilemmas to ponder. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 1, 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith, S. S. (1995). The American Congress. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  53. Sullivan, C.M., & Coats, S. (2000). Outcome evaluation strategies for sexual assault service programs: A practical guide. Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. https://www.wcasa.org/file_open.php?id=883. Accessed 02 June 2017.
  54. Van Wormer, K., Roberts, A., Springer, D.W., & Brownell, P. (2008). Forensic social work: Current and emerging developments. In K. M. Sowers, & C. N. Dulmus (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of social work and social welfare (pp. 315–342). John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Online doi:  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470373705. Accessed 17 May 2017.
  55. Walgrave, L. (2000). How pure can a maximalist approach to restorative justice remain? Or can a purist model of restorative justice become maximalist? Contemporary Justice Review, 3, 415–432.Google Scholar
  56. Walker, J. L., Jr. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32(5), 375–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wexler, D. (2000). Therapeutic jurisprudence: An overview. Thomas M Cooley Law Review, 17, 125–134.Google Scholar
  59. Wexler, D. B. (1990). Therapeutic jurisprudence: The law as a therapeutic agent. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  60. Wexler, D. B. (1996). Therapeutic jurisprudence and changing conceptions of legal scholarship. In D. B. Wexler & B. J. Winick (Eds.), Law in a therapeutic key: Developments in therapeutic jurisprudence (pp. 597–610). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  61. Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: Restorative justice for our times. Harrisonburg, VA: Herald Press.Google Scholar
  62. Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Book.Google Scholar

Legal References

    Cases

    1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
    2. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
    3. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).Google Scholar
    4. General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).Google Scholar
    5. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).Google Scholar
    6. Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 520 F.3d 237 (3rd Cir. 2008).Google Scholar
    7. State v. R.R., 807 N.Y.S.2d 516 (2005).Google Scholar
    8. State v. Taylor, 669 So.2d 364 (La., 1996), rehearing denied.Google Scholar
    9. United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514 (5th Cir. 2004).Google Scholar

    Statutes

    1. Alaska Rule of Evidence 702 (2014).Google Scholar
    2. Arkansas Rule of Evidence 702 (2016).Google Scholar
    3. California Evidence Code §720 (2016).Google Scholar
    4. Connecticut Code of Evidence 7-2 (2000).Google Scholar
    5. Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence 702 (2001).Google Scholar
    6. Evidence Code, Florida Statutes 90.702 (2013).Google Scholar
    7. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (2011).Google Scholar
    8. Hawaii Rules of Evidence 702 (2010).Google Scholar
    9. Idaho Rules of Evidence 702 (1985).Google Scholar
    10. Illinois Rules of Evidence 702 (2011).Google Scholar
    11. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93–415.Google Scholar
    12. Kentucky Rules of Evidence 702 (2007).Google Scholar
    13. Louisiana Code of Evidence 702 (1989).Google Scholar
    14. Michigan Rules of Evidence 702 (2012).Google Scholar
    15. Minnesota Rules of Evidence 702 (2006).Google Scholar
    16. Mississippi Rules of Evidence 702 (2003).Google Scholar
    17. Missouri Revised Statutes 490.065 (2017).Google Scholar
    18. Montana Code Annotated, Rule of Evidence 702 (2015).Google Scholar
    19. Nebraska Code §27-702, Rule 702 (1975).Google Scholar
    20. Nevada Revised Statutes 50.275 (1971).Google Scholar
    21. New Hampshire Rules of Evidence 702 (2011).Google Scholar
    22. North Carolina General Statutes 8C-702, Rule 702 (2011).Google Scholar
    23. North Dakota Rules of Evidence 702 (2014).Google Scholar
    24. Ohio Rules of Evidence 702 (1994).Google Scholar
    25. Oregon Revised Statutes 40.410, Rule 702 (2015).Google Scholar
    26. Opinion and Expert Testimony, South Dakota Codified Laws 19-15-2 (2011).Google Scholar
    27. Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence 702 (2013).Google Scholar
    28. South Carolina Rules of Evidence 702 (2011).Google Scholar
    29. South Dakota Codified Laws 19-15-2, Rule 702 (2012).Google Scholar
    30. Texas Rules of Evidence 702 (2015).Google Scholar
    31. Utah Rules of Evidence 702 (2011).Google Scholar
    32. Washington Rules of Evidence 702 (1979).Google Scholar
    33. Wisconsin Statutes 907.02(1) (2011).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sana Loue
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Medicine, Department of BioethicsCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations