SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW

TOPIC: COMPARISON BETWEEN CRIMINAL AND FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY

Under the guidance of: Mr. SUGITH KUMAR,

Faculty, TNDALU.

Dated on – 20-08-2025

NAME : MOHAMED THOUFIC S

REG NO : HD21087

COURSE : B.C.A LL.B (HONS)

YEAR :V

SECTION : ‘B’

SUBJECT : PSYCHOLOGY OF CRIME

STUDENT SIGN FACULTY SIGN

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

PART NO TITLE OF THE PART PAGE NO

I Abstract 3
II Introduction 4
III Literature review & 6
Doctrinal framework
IV Criminal Psychology 9
V Forensic Psychology 11
VI Comparative Analysis 14
Between Criminal And
Forensic Psychology
VII Case Analysis: Comparative 17
Application In Judicial
Decisions
VIII Conclusion 21
IX The Future Trajectory & 21,22
Bibliography

2
ABSTRACT:

The disciplines of Criminal psychology and forensic psychology, while interrelated, serve
wonderful purposes within the observe and practice of regulation, crime, and justice. Criminal
psychology is in most cases worried with knowledge the mental processes, motivations, and
behavioural styles of offenders, thereby attempting to explain why crimes are devoted. In
assessment, forensic psychology is oriented closer to the application of mental principles and
expertise within the felony device, focusing at the assessment, treatment, and assessment of
individuals in criminal contexts. The intersection of those fields is essential in both criminal
investigations and judicial proceedings, especially in cases related to mental fitness defences,
the admissibility of mental proof, and the reliability of witness testimony.

This paper examines the fundamental similarities and variations among criminal psychology
and forensic psychology inside the broader framework of the psychology of crime. It highlights
their roles in felony decision-making, drawing from case law, statutory provisions, and mental
theories. by way of analysing key cases, including the M’Naghten rules (1843), which installed
the legal test for insanity, and subsequent jurisprudence at the admissibility of psychological
proof, the paper explores how courts have balanced mental science with legal doctrine.

In addition, the research addresses the concepts of desire of regulation applicable to move-
border criminal instances involving psychological exams, especially focusing on lex fori
(regulation of the forum) in the admission of expert evidence and lex loci delicti (regulation of
the location of crime) in establishing criminal responsibility. Precedents from not unusual
regulation jurisdictions along with the UK, america, and India are evaluated, along comparative
insights from international criminal regulation.

Through a vital comparison, the observe demonstrates that even as criminal psychology
presents the theoretical basis for expertise criminal behaviour, forensic psychology gives you
sensible equipment to the justice gadget inside the shape of wrongdoer profiling, competency
critiques, and professional testimony. The convergence of these fields underlines the
importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in ensuring justice whilst upholding the rights of
the accused. ultimately, the research underscores the evolving significance of psychology
inside regulation and criminology, arguing that the difference between the two domains, though
conceptually legitimate, is an increasing number of blurred in exercise.

3
PART II- INTRODUCTION:

The relationship between psychology and regulation has traditionally been one in all cautious
engagement. even as regulation is prescriptive, rooted in statutes, precedents, and formal
techniques, psychology is descriptive, searching for to give an explanation for human
behaviour, cognition, and intellectual states. inside the area of criminal regulation, this
intersection turns into especially applicable, as the intellectual processes of offenders, the
reliability of witnesses, and the competency of defendants directly have an effect on the course
of justice.

Criminal psychology and forensic psychology are two sub-disciplines that illustrate this
interplay. even though the phrases are regularly used interchangeably, they represent wonderful
yet complementary processes. criminal psychology is usually theoretical, focusing at the
mental look at of criminal behaviour, motivations, and personality traits. It seeks to reply
questions along with: Why do humans devote crimes? What factors predispose people to
criminality? How do cognitive distortions, persona disorders, or socio-environmental elements
shape criminal behavior? In evaluation, forensic psychology is greater implemented, worried
with the utilisation of psychological understanding in legal contexts. It addresses problems
along with the intellectual competence of defendants to face trial, hazard assessment of
offenders, remedy of criminal populations, and the admissibility of mental proof in courts.

The relevance of this difference has been highlighted in severa instances. for example, in
M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 Cl & Fin two hundred, the residence of Lords set up the insanity
defence, introducing a felony check based on psychological disability. this case illustrated the
important want for mental information within the courtroom, while simultaneously delineating
the limits among medical-mental information and felony standards. in addition, in Barefoot v
Estelle 463 US 880 (1983), america best courtroom considered whether or not psychiatric
predictions of destiny dangerousness had been admissible, raising questions on the reliability
and ethical use of mental testimony.

4
From a doctrinal angle, the position of psychology in law also increases troubles of conflict of
laws and preference of law ideas, mainly when psychological tests performed in a single
jurisdiction are invoked in every other. for instance, in worldwide criminal law, determinations
of competency or criminal duty should regularly reconcile home legal requirements with
international norms below gadgets which include the Rome Statute of the international criminal
courtroom. In such contexts, the discussion board court docket generally applies lex fori in
figuring out evidentiary admissibility, while problems of important liability might also invoke
lex loci delicti commissi.

The significance of this research lies in its try and offer a complete contrast between criminal
psychology and forensic psychology, no longer simplest of their conceptual foundations but
additionally in their practical impact on criminal tactics. This assessment is framed within the
broader issue of the psychology of crime, a discipline that integrates criminological theories,
legal doctrines, and psychological science.

This paper adopts a structured technique. element I traces the ancient evolution of criminal and
forensic psychology, situating them within criminological concept and legal doctrine. element
II affords a detailed comparative evaluation, highlighting areas of overlap and divergence.
Element III examines landmark instances that demonstrate the utility of psychological
principles in criminal trials, with a focal point on information, issues, arguments, and
judgments. component IV addresses the ideas of desire of regulation and evidentiary
admissibility in pass-border contexts. Element V engages in a essential discussion of modern
demanding situations, together with the reliability of expert testimony, ethical concerns, and
the growing impact of neuroscience within the courtroom. The paper concludes with reflections
at the future trajectory of psychology inside the legal gadget.

By way of situating this contrast inside a doctrinal and case-regulation framework, the research
underscores the crucial position of psychology in regulation even as cautioning against the
uncritical attractiveness of psychological evidence. It argues that a nuanced know-how of both
criminal and forensic psychology is crucial for legal practitioners, policymakers, and pupils
engaged in the pursuit of justice.

5
PART III – LITERATURE REVIEW & DOCTRINAL FRAMEWORK

Literature Review and Doctrinal Framework

The relationship between psychology and the law has attracted significant scholarly attention
over the past century. Criminology, psychology, and law are intertwined disciplines, each
contributing unique perspectives to the understanding of crime and justice. In this section, the
literature on criminal psychology and forensic psychology is critically reviewed, alongside the
doctrinal framework that underpins their application in legal contexts.

a. Evolution of Criminal Psychology

Criminal psychology emerged as a field of study during the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, shaped by positivist criminology and psychoanalytic theory. Cesare Lombroso’s
concept of the “born criminal” reflected early attempts to link biological and psychological
traits to criminal behaviour. While later discredited, Lombroso’s work laid the groundwork for
the scientific study of offenders. Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theories added further
insights, emphasising unconscious drives, repression, and unresolved childhood conflicts as
factors in criminal conduct.

Modern criminal psychology incorporates a wide range of psychological theories, including

behavioural models (e.g., social learning theory), cognitive theories (e.g., moral development
and cognitive distortions), and personality-based approaches (e.g., psychopathy as
conceptualised by Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist). This field largely remains theoretical,
aiming to explain the causes of criminal behaviour rather than directly intervening in judicial
processes.

b. Development of Forensic Psychology

Forensic psychology, in contrast, is a more recent discipline that developed in the mid-twentieth
century as psychology became increasingly integrated into legal proceedings. Hugo
Münsterberg’s seminal work On the Witness Stand (1908) is often considered the starting point
of forensic psychology, highlighting issues of eyewitness testimony, lie detection, and the role
of psychological science in courts. Over time, forensic psychology expanded to encompass a
wide range of applied functions, including expert testimony, assessment of competence to stand
trial, evaluation of criminal responsibility, risk assessment, and treatment of offenders within
correctional systems.

6
Scholars such as Bartol and Bartol argue that forensic psychology is distinguished from
criminal psychology by its direct engagement with legal processes, making it an applied
profession rather than a purely academic discipline. Its integration with the law has been
facilitated through the recognition of psychological expertise in statutes, evidentiary rules, and
judicial precedents.

c. Doctrinal Framework

From a doctrinal standpoint, the use of psychology in law is governed by principles of criminal
liability, evidentiary admissibility, and procedural safeguards. In criminal law, doctrines such
as the insanity defence, diminished responsibility, and competency to stand trial require courts
to assess the mental state of defendants. Psychological expertise becomes crucial in these
determinations.

For example, the M’Naghten Rules (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200 established that a defendant could
be acquitted on grounds of insanity if, at the time of committing the act, they were labouring
under a defect of reason from a disease of the mind such that they did not know the nature and
quality of the act or that it was wrong. This doctrine remains foundational in common law
jurisdictions and illustrates the interface between legal and psychological concepts.

Similarly, evidentiary law dictates the conditions under which psychological testimony is
admissible. In England, the test of expert admissibility is shaped by R v Turner [1975] QB 834,
which held that expert evidence is admissible only if it provides information outside the
knowledge and experience of the jury. In the United States, the admissibility of scientific
testimony is governed by the Frye standard (Frye v United States 293 F 1013 (1923)) and the
later Daubert standard (Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 US 579 (1993)),
requiring courts to evaluate the reliability and relevance of expert testimony.

At the international level, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognises the
role of psychological assessments in determining the mental competence of defendants and in
evaluating evidence of trauma in victims and witnesses. Thus, both domestic and international
law acknowledge the necessity of psychology in legal processes, though always subject to
judicial scrutiny.

d. Comparative Jurisprudence

Comparative perspectives reveal different approaches to integrating psychology into law. In

the United Kingdom, forensic psychology is tightly regulated, with the British Psychological

7
Society providing accreditation for practitioners and courts exercising discretion in admitting
expert evidence. In the United States, the use of forensic psychology is more expansive,
particularly in capital sentencing where psychological risk assessments are often introduced.
However, this has also led to controversies, as seen in Barefoot v Estelle 463 US 880 (1983),
where the Supreme Court allowed psychiatric predictions of future dangerousness despite
concerns about their reliability.

In India, the role of forensic psychology is still evolving. While the Indian Evidence Act 1872
provides general rules for expert testimony under Section 45, courts have been cautious in
admitting psychological evidence. The use of narco-analysis, brain mapping, and polygraph
tests, for example, was curtailed by the Supreme Court in Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010) 7
SCC 263, which held that such techniques violate the constitutional right against self-
incrimination under Article 20(3).

e. Scholarly Perspectives

The academic literature reflects divergent views on the role of psychology in law. Some
scholars emphasise its indispensability, arguing that justice cannot be achieved without
understanding the psychological dimensions of crime. Others caution against overreliance,
noting that psychological assessments often lack precision and may be influenced by subjective
biases.

Ward and Beech highlight that forensic psychology must balance scientific rigour with legal
pragmatism, ensuring that psychological insights do not undermine due process. Similarly,
Gudjonsson underscores the risks of wrongful convictions arising from unreliable
psychological evidence, particularly in the context of false confessions and coerced
interrogations.

f. Synthesis

The literature reveals that criminal psychology and forensic psychology are distinct but
overlapping fields. Criminal psychology provides the theoretical foundation for understanding
criminal behaviour, while forensic psychology operationalises this knowledge in legal settings.
The doctrinal framework ensures that psychological insights are integrated into law in a manner
consistent with legal principles of fairness, reliability, and justice.

8
PART IV – CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY

Criminal Psychology: Theoretical Foundations and Applications

Criminal psychology, often termed criminological psychology, is primarily concerned with the
study of the mental processes of offenders. It seeks to explain why crimes are committed,
identifying psychological factors that contribute to criminal conduct.

Defining Criminal Psychology

Criminal psychology may be defined as the study of the thoughts, intentions, actions, and
reactions of criminals and suspects. Its focus is explanatory rather than prescriptive, aiming to
understand causation rather than prescribe legal outcomes. Unlike forensic psychology, it does
not directly engage with courts but informs criminological theory, law enforcement strategies,
and correctional policies.

Theories of Criminal Behaviour

Numerous psychological theories underpin criminal psychology:

• Psychoanalytic Theory: Freud’s model attributes criminal behaviour to unconscious

conflicts and unresolved childhood issues. For instance, repressed aggression may
manifest as violent crime.

• Behavioural Theory: Rooted in learning theory, this perspective suggests that criminal
behaviour is learned through reinforcement, imitation, and modelling. Albert Bandura’s
Bobo Doll experiment demonstrated how aggression could be socially learned.

• Cognitive Theory: Kohlberg’s stages of moral development suggest that criminals

often operate at lower levels of moral reasoning, justifying antisocial behaviour through
cognitive distortions.

• Personality Theory: Eysenck’s personality model associates criminality with high

levels of extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism.

• Biopsychosocial Models: Contemporary theories integrate biological predispositions

(e.g., genetics, brain abnormalities) with psychological traits and social environments.

a. Profiling and Criminal Investigations

One of the most well-known applications of criminal psychology is offender profiling.

Profiling involves using psychological insights to predict the characteristics of offenders based
9
on crime scene evidence. The FBI’s Behavioural Science Unit popularised this technique in the
1970s, applying it to serial crimes.

While profiling has gained public attention, its scientific validity remains contested. Studies
indicate mixed success rates, with some scholars criticising it as anecdotal rather than
empirical. Nonetheless, it remains a useful investigative tool when combined with forensic
science and criminological data.

b. Criminal Psychology and Sentencing

Criminal psychology also informs sentencing policies. Courts may consider psychological
reports on an offender’s risk of reoffending, personality traits, and amenability to rehabilitation.
For instance, in cases involving juveniles, psychological assessments are critical in determining
whether rehabilitation or punishment should be prioritised.

CASE STUDY: M’NAGHTEN’S CASE (1843)

The case of Daniel M’Naghten illustrates the intersection of criminal psychology with legal
doctrine. M’Naghten, suffering from delusions, shot and killed Edward Drummond, mistaking
him for the British Prime Minister. The House of Lords held that M’Naghten was not guilty by
reason of insanity, establishing the rules that continue to shape the insanity defence.

This case highlights how psychological conditions directly influence criminal responsibility. It
also demonstrates how courts draw upon psychological concepts, even when framed in legal
terms, to adjudicate criminal liability.

10
PART V – FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY

Forensic Psychology: Applied Dimensions and Legal Relevance

While criminal psychology remains primarily theoretical, forensic psychology is the applied
discipline that operates within the justice system. It involves the scientific application of
psychological knowledge to assist legal decision-making. Its focus is pragmatic: to provide
courts, law enforcement, and correctional institutions with insights that inform fair and
effective administration of justice.

Defining Forensic Psychology

The American Psychological Association (APA) defines forensic psychology as the

professional practice by psychologists when they provide expertise to the legal and judicial
systems. In essence, it sits at the intersection of law and psychology, addressing questions of
criminal responsibility, witness reliability, offender treatment, and risk assessment.

Forensic psychology differs from criminal psychology in that: It directly engages with courts,
tribunals, and legal actors. It provides expert evidence admissible under evidentiary rules. It
evaluates individuals (offenders, victims, witnesses) for legal purposes.it is regulated as a
profession, with ethical standards and accreditation requirements.

Core Functions of Forensic Psychology

Forensic psychologists perform a variety of functions across the criminal justice system.

(a) Competency Evaluations

One of the most critical functions is evaluating whether defendants are fit to stand trial. Under
common law, an accused must understand the charges against them and be able to instruct
counsel. Forensic psychologists conduct structured interviews and assessments (e.g.,
Competency Assessment Instrument) to determine competence.

For example, in the U.S. case Dusky v United States 362 U.S. 402 (1960), the Supreme Court
held that a defendant must have a “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a
reasonable degree of rational understanding” and “a rational as well as factual understanding
of the proceedings.” This standard continues to guide competency evaluations.

11
(b) Criminal Responsibility (Insanity and Diminished Capacity)

Forensic psychologists are often asked to evaluate whether a defendant was criminally
responsible at the time of the offence. This involves assessments of mental illness, psychosis,
or cognitive impairment. In jurisdictions with the M’Naghten Rules, forensic psychologists
provide expert evidence on whether defendants understood the nature or wrongfulness of their
actions.

(c) Risk Assessment and Dangerousness

Courts often require predictions about whether an offender is likely to reoffend. Tools such as
the HCR-20 (Historical-Clinical-Risk) and the Static-99 (for sex offenders) are commonly
used. These assessments influence bail decisions, sentencing, and parole eligibility. However,
they are controversial because predictions are probabilistic, raising concerns about fairness and
accuracy.

(d) Eyewitness Testimony and Memory

Forensic psychologists study the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Research shows that
memory is malleable and prone to errors due to stress, suggestion, and bias. Courts increasingly
rely on psychological insights when evaluating identification evidence.

In R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224, the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for evaluating
eyewitness identification, implicitly acknowledging psychological findings about memory
fallibility. Similarly, U.S. courts have considered psychological research in Neil v Biggers 409
U.S. 188 (1972), which addressed the reliability of eyewitness identification.

(e) Jury Behaviour and Decision-Making

Forensic psychologists also provide insights into how jurors perceive evidence, experts, and
defendants. This includes issues of bias, prejudice, and group dynamics. In some jurisdictions,
psychologists are involved in jury selection (voir dire), though this remains controversial.

(f) Treatment and Rehabilitation

Beyond courtrooms, forensic psychologists play a role in correctional settings. They design
rehabilitation programs for offenders, provide therapy, and implement behaviour modification
strategies aimed at reducing recidivism. For juvenile offenders, psychologists develop tailored
interventions that address developmental and social needs.

12
Evidentiary Framework

Forensic psychology operates under strict evidentiary controls. Courts must ensure that expert
evidence is both relevant and reliable.

In England:

R v Turner [1975] QB 834 held that expert testimony is admissible only when the subject matter
is outside the jury’s knowledge.

In United States:

Admissibility is guided by: Frye v United States (1923) – requiring “general acceptance” of
scientific evidence AND ALSO IN Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579
(1993) – requiring courts to act as “gatekeepers,” considering reliability, peer review, error
rates, and acceptance.

In India:

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 governs expert testimony, including psychological
expertise. However, Indian courts remain cautious, as seen in Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010)
7 SCC 263, where involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping were held
unconstitutional.

Thus, forensic psychology is circumscribed by legal safeguards to prevent undue influence on

judicial outcomes.

CASE STUDY: R V BYRNE [1960] 2 QB 396

The case of R v Byrne demonstrates the legal application of forensic psychology. The
defendant, a sexual psychopath, strangled a young woman. Medical experts testified that Byrne
suffered from “abnormality of mind” that impaired his ability to control his impulses. The
Court of Appeal accepted this evidence, expanding the scope of the defence of diminished
responsibility.

This case exemplifies how forensic psychologists influence legal doctrines by providing courts
with nuanced understandings of mental conditions. The judgment acknowledged that
psychological evidence could mitigate culpability, paving the way for more sophisticated
defences.

13
 PART VI – COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN CRIMINAL AND FORENSIC
PSYCHOLOGY

Conceptual Distinction

At first glance, criminal psychology and forensic psychology appear to overlap significantly
since both involve the application of psychology to crime. Yet, their focus, scope, and method
are distinct:

• Criminal Psychology: Primarily theoretical, concerned with explaining why crime

occurs. It draws upon theories of personality, socialisation, learning, and mental
disorder to understand offender behaviour. It is largely academic and research-driven,
though sometimes applied in offender profiling.

• Forensic Psychology: Applied and practice-oriented, focused on answering specific

legal questions for courts, police, and correctional institutions. Its purpose is not to
explain crime in general but to provide evidence-based insights to assist legal decision-
making.

6.2 Scope of Application

Aspect Criminal Psychology Forensic Psychology

Application of psychology in courts

Focus Causes of crime and offender behaviour
and legal contexts

Competency evaluations, risk

Primary Role Research, theory-building, offender profiling
assessments, expert evidence

Judges, juries, lawyers, correctional

Audience Academics, criminologists, policy-makers
staff

Nature of Work Largely academic or investigative Largely clinical and legal

Immediate relevance to ongoing

Timeframe Long-term study of patterns and behaviours
cases

For example, while a criminal psychologist might study why individuals from deprived
backgrounds are more likely to commit theft, a forensic psychologist would be asked whether
a particular accused is competent to stand trial for theft.

14
Relationship with the Law

Criminal psychology interacts with law at a macro level. It influences public policy, penal
reform, and crime prevention strategies. For example, research showing that harsher sentences
do not deter crime has shaped debates on sentencing reform.

Forensic psychology, in contrast, interacts with law at a micro level. It influences individual
cases by offering expert testimony, mental health evaluations, and sentencing
recommendations.

In R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396, forensic psychological testimony shaped the doctrine of

diminished responsibility. In contrast, research by criminal psychologists has broadly
influenced how legislatures think about juvenile crime, leading to greater emphasis on
rehabilitation.

CASE STUDY COMPARISON

CASE EXAMPLE 1 – EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

• Criminal psychologists (e.g., Elizabeth Loftus) have conducted decades of research

showing memory distortions in eyewitness testimony. Their studies are theoretical and
based on experiments.

• Forensic psychologists, however, present this research in specific cases to argue that a
particular eyewitness identification may be unreliable. Courts then consider such
testimony when deciding admissibility or weight of evidence.

CASE EXAMPLE 2 – INSANITY DEFENCE

• Criminal psychologists might study how mental disorders correlate with violent
behaviour.

• Forensic psychologists directly evaluate whether a defendant (e.g., in Daniel

McNaughten’s Case [1843] 10 Cl & Fin 200) suffered from such disorder at the time
of the crime, thus affecting criminal liability.

This illustrates how criminal psychology provides the theory while forensic psychology applies
it.

15
Jurisprudential Implications

The comparison also highlights how law engages with psychology: Law often demands
certainty (beyond reasonable doubt), whereas psychology offers probabilities and explanations.
Criminal psychology informs law at the legislative and policy stage, while forensic psychology
assists at the adjudicative stage. Together, they embody the broader field of legal psychology,
which recognises that understanding crime requires both theory and application.

Short Conclusion of Comparative Analysis

The distinction between criminal psychology and forensic psychology is one of theory versus
application, macro versus micro, and research versus practice. Yet they are interdependent.
Criminal psychology without forensic application risks irrelevance, while forensic psychology
without criminal theory risks superficiality.

The two fields thus form complementary pillars in the psychology of crime: one explaining
why crime happens, the other assisting courts in responding to it. Both contribute to a more
humane, rational, and effective justice system.

16
PART VII – CASE ANALYSIS: COMPARATIVE APPLICATION IN JUDICIAL
DECISIONS

Introduction to Case Analysis

To fully appreciate the intersection of criminal psychology and forensic psychology, it is

essential to examine landmark cases where psychological evidence has shaped the trajectory
of legal judgments. The following three cases—one English, one American, and one Indian—
illustrate how courts have received psychological insights, how principles of law interacted
with them, and how they continue to inform jurisprudence today.

CASE 1: DANIEL MCNAUGHTEN’S CASE (1843) 10 CL & FIN 200 (UK)

Facts:
Daniel McNaughten, suffering from delusions, believed the government was persecuting him.
In this paranoid state, he shot Edward Drummond, the secretary to the Prime Minister,
mistaking him for Sir Robert Peel. McNaughten was arrested and charged with murder.

Issues:

1. Was McNaughten legally insane at the time of committing the act?

2. Could psychological evidence of delusion negate criminal responsibility?

Provisions:

• The case led to the formulation of the McNaughten Rules, which established the legal
test for insanity in England.

• The rule: A defendant is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the act, they were
suffering from a defect of reason due to a disease of the mind, such that they did not
know the nature/quality of the act, or, if they did know, did not know it was wrong.

Principle of Law Applied:

Here, the lex fori principle was applied—the court used English domestic law to determine
criminal liability, rather than looking at foreign or international doctrines.

17
Arguments:

• Prosecution: McNaughten knew what he was doing when he pulled the trigger and must
be held accountable.

• Defence: His paranoid delusions rendered him incapable of distinguishing right from
wrong.

Judgment:
McNaughten was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The case led to the codification of the
insanity defence under common law, shaping how forensic psychology would be used in
criminal trials henceforth.

Relevance Today:

• The McNaughten Rules still influence insanity defences in many common law
jurisdictions, though critics argue they are outdated and overly narrow.

• Forensic psychologists now provide psychiatric evaluations in such cases, applying

structured diagnostic tools rather than mere impressions.

• Criminal psychology provides broader theories about mental illness and crime, but it is
forensic psychology that operationalises those theories in individual trials.

Citation:
Daniel McNaughten’s Case (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200; 8 ER 718.

CASE 2: DUSKY V UNITED STATES (1960) 362 U.S. 402 (USA)

Facts:
Milton Dusky, a man with schizophrenia, was charged with kidnapping and rape. His mental
condition was so impaired that questions arose about whether he could understand the
proceedings against him or assist in his own defence.

Issues:

1. What is the standard for determining competency to stand trial?

2. How should psychological evaluations guide the court?

Provisions:

• U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment – right to a fair trial.

18
 • The Supreme Court established the Dusky Standard, which requires that a defendant
has “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of
rational understanding—and a rational as well as factual understanding of the
proceedings against him.”

Principle of Law Applied:

Here, lex fori again governed: U.S. courts applied their domestic constitutional standard to
competency. Unlike insanity (time of act), competency focuses on the defendant’s present
mental state.
Arguments:

• Prosecution: Dusky understood the charges against him sufficiently to proceed.

• Defence: His schizophrenia impaired his ability to rationally assist counsel.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that Dusky was not competent to stand trial under the Constitution.

Relevance Today:

• This case is foundational in forensic psychology. Competency evaluations remain one

of the most common tasks assigned to forensic psychologists.

• Criminal psychology provides the theories of mental disorder, but forensic psychology
applies them in clinical evaluations, directly guiding courts.

• The Dusky Standard is still applied in U.S. courts today, cementing the
interdependence of psychology and law.

Citation:
Dusky v United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).

19
 CASE 3: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. SINDHI @ RAMAN

Facts:
The accused was charged with murder but claimed insanity. Medical records indicated prior
treatment for mental illness. The trial court and High Court convicted him, rejecting the insanity
plea.

Issues:

1. What is the scope of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on insanity?

2. Can forensic psychiatric evidence prove unsoundness of mind at the time of crime?

Provisions:

• Section 84 IPC: “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of
doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the
act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”

• This provision is modelled on the McNaughten Rules.

Principle of Law Applied:

Indian courts apply lex fori (domestic IPC provisions), though they inherit common law
principles from English precedent.
Arguments:

• Prosecution: Prior treatment did not prove insanity at the time of the act.

• Defence: Consistent history of mental disorder should suffice for acquittal under
Section 84 IPC.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the burden of proof for insanity is on
the accused. Mere prior history of mental illness is insufficient unless unsoundness of mind at
the time of the act is proven.

Relevance Today:

• The case shows how forensic psychologists are critical in evaluating whether a
defendant was insane at the time of the act.

20
 • Criminal psychology’s role is more indirect here, in providing theories of mental illness
and criminal behaviour.

• The decision highlights the strictness of Indian courts in applying Section 84 IPC,
demanding concrete forensic evidence.

Citation:
State of Maharashtra v Sindhi @ Raman, AIR 1975 SC 479.

PART VIII – CONCLUSION

Restating the Core Inquiry:

This assignment has explored the comparative dimensions of criminal psychology and
forensic psychology in the field of crime and justice. While both disciplines study the
relationship between human behaviour and the law, their methodological orientations and
functions differ significantly:

Criminal psychology is primarily theoretical, seeking to explain why individuals commit

crimes, relying on psychological frameworks such as personality theory, behavioural
conditioning, social learning, and psychopathology.

Forensic psychology, in contrast, is pragmatic and applied. It translates psychological

knowledge into legal contexts, assisting judges, juries, investigators, and correctional
institutions with evaluations, expert evidence, offender treatment, and risk assessments.

Together, they form complementary pillars of what may be termed the “psychology of crime”.

PART IX: THE FUTURE TRAJECTORY

As crime grows more complex—cybercrime, terrorism, organised crime—psychology will

remain vital to law. Criminal psychology will continue refining explanatory theories, while
forensic psychology will increasingly provide the evidentiary backbone of legal decision-
making. The integration of technology, neuroscience, and international human rights law
will define the next era of collaboration between these two branches.

Ultimately, the comparative study demonstrates that neither field can function in isolation.
Criminal psychology provides the theoretical soil from which forensic psychology grows;

21
forensic psychology, in turn, grounds those theories in practice, ensuring that justice is not only
punitive but also rehabilitative and scientifically informed.

CONCLUDING REFLECTION

The comparison between criminal and forensic psychology thus reveals a synergistic
relationship: one explaining behaviour, the other applying that explanation within law. Their
union enhances justice by making it more accurate, humane, and scientifically credible. Yet
the path forward requires caution—avoiding over-reliance on speculative theories, guarding
against misuse of predictive tools, and balancing rights of defendants with societal need for
security.

In closing, psychology’s role in law is not just about understanding the criminal mind, but about
shaping a justice system that is rational, compassionate, and firmly anchored in evidence.

Bibliography:

• Bartol, Curt R. and Anne M. Bartol, Introduction to Forensic Psychology (5th edn, Sage
2019).

• Canter, David, Criminal Shadows: Inside the Mind of the Serial Killer (HarperCollins
1995).

• Eysenck, HJ, Crime and Personality (3rd edn, Routledge 2013).

• M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200.

• Dusky v United States 362 US 402 (1960).

• State of Maharashtra v Sindhi @ Raman AIR 1975 SC 1665.

• Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263.

22