An uncomfortable tension: Reconciling the principles of forensic psychology and cultural competency

State of Washington v. Sisouvanh (2012) was the first case in which an appellate court asserted the need for cultural competence in competency-to-stand-trial evaluations. A court reiterated this need in State of Washington v. Ortiz-Abrego (2017). Research in forensic psychology seldom addressed cultural considerations in pretrial evaluations until this past decade, but the growing body of literature pales in comparison to the work found in clinical and counseling psychology. Most of the current literature acknowledges the lack of professionally sanctioned practice guidelines and makes valuable suggestions regarding how to address cultural factors that are relevant to the requisite capacities of legal competency. Yet, none of this research addresses potential risks incurred by the evaluators who attempt to incorporate these suggestions into practice or acknowledges the possible incompatibility between forensic and cultural competency principles.

The authors posit there may be areas of incompatability, or tension, between the tenets of forensic psychology and cultural competency.

To examine this potential incompatibility, we reviewed legal cases with cultural implications, addressed recent developments regarding cultural "incompetence," and conducted an overview of cultural competency in clinical and forensic psychology.

Comparing general principles of forensic psychology with those of cultural responsiveness and humility, we found that questions emerged regarding the potential philosophical conflicts as well as risks that may be incurred by individual evaluators in legal settings.

The resultant dilemma sets the stage for pragmatic suggestions regarding communication, assessment, and diagnosis. Finally, we emphasize the need for sanctioned practice guidelines. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).