A new study from a James Cook University researcher argues that forensic psychology, long treated by courts as an objective scientific discipline, may in fact be deepening systemic injustice, particularly for marginalised communities.
JCU PhD student Rebecca Ward says the field’s core practices, from risk assessments to expert testimony, are compromised by structural bias and an unwarranted confidence in the neutrality of psychological expertise.
“Widely-used risk assessment tools, designed to predict future criminal behaviour, can mischaracterise defendants in ways that disproportionately harm already disadvantaged groups,” said Ms Ward.
“Many of these tools are proprietary, preventing independent scrutiny of their methods and accuracy.”
She said the issue is not a technical oversight but the systematic misunderstanding or misrepresentation of marginalised people.
“The paper highlights how confirmation and authority bias and unwarranted confidence in expert judgment can shape forensic conclusions, compounding errors rather than correcting them,” said Ms Ward.
She said stronger safeguards, such as blinding procedures, sequential evidence review and independent oversight are needed to reduce the influence of bias.
“There is also the problem of the commercialisation of forensic expertise, with psychological opinions too often functioning as strategic tools for legal teams rather than neutral scientific contributions,” she said.
She said the paper urges a radical rethinking of forensic psychology.
“This needs to be grounded in transparency, empirical validation, scientific rigour and cognitive science-based safeguards. Without such reforms, the discipline risks continuing to legitimise injustice rather than illuminate truth,” said Ms Ward.
Link to paper here.
