* The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, except where cited, and may or may not represent those of the Community College of the City University of Hong Kong. For correspondence, please email the author at andrewp@cityu.edu.hk.  

What is Forensic Psychology?
Forensic psychology forms a nexus between Psychology and the Law. It is difficult to give it a definition that is universally accepted by those working in the field. This is because forensic psychology has grown exponentially over the last 20 years as a field of research and practice, constantly broadening the interface between psychology and the legal and criminal justice systems. For example, Heilbrun and Annis (1988) first noted more than 20 years ago that forensic psychology is among the few areas of psychology that have demonstrated considerable growth at the time. Subsequent authors (e.g., Otto & Heilbrun, 2002; Parker, 2008; Roesch, 2000) continue to share this view noting an increasing involvement of forensic psychologists in a widening range of settings like courts, police force, correctional institutions, probation and parole services, and restorative justice. Within these settings, forensic psychologists work indirectly (e.g., conducting simulation research) or directly (e.g., offender assessment and rehabilitation) with a diversity of populations including judges, lawyers, disputing parties, offenders, victims, and their families; concerning a variety of issues such as competency to stand trial, rehabilitation, mediation, and so forth. This growth has two implications. First, it implies that psychology can assist triers of fact in the legal arena – a view that is well accepted by those working in the legal arena as well as those working in the forensic domain (Deffenbacher, 1984). Second, it makes the summarising of forensic psychology into a single definition more challenging but at the same time more pertinent so as to help define what is and isn’t within the realms of forensic psychology to ensure the quality of forensic psychological services provided to the consumers. According to the American Board of Forensic Psychology (2009):

Forensic Psychology is the application of the science and profession of psychology to questions and issues relating to law and the legal system. The word "forensic" comes from the Latin word "forensis," meaning "of the forum," where the law courts of ancient Rome were held. Today forensic refers to the application of scientific principles and practices to the adversary process where specially knowledgeable scientists play a role.

While this definition suitably reflects the value of forensic psychology in the legal arena, it under-emphasises the application of the discipline in criminal settings like offender rehabilitation and reintegration. Perhaps a more representative definition is the one set forth in the ‘Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists’ published by the Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (1991) - an expert body established within Division 41 (American Psychology-Law Society) of the American Psychology Association. It defines forensic psychology as:

all forms of professional psychological conduct when acting, with definable foreknowledge, as a psychological expert on explicitly psycholegal issues, in direct assistance to courts, parties to legal proceedings, correctional and forensic mental health facilities, and administrative, judicial, and legislative agencies acting in an adjudicative capacity (p.657).

What do Forensic Psychologists do?
Another approach to defining forensic psychology is by examining concrete examples of what forensic psychologists do and where they work. While the continuing diversification of the discipline makes it difficult to provide an exhaustive list of all the services and industries that have a forensic psychological focus, nonetheless, many existing professional bodies (e.g., Australian Psychological Society) acknowledge that forensic psychologists are active in the following arenas:

• Civil litigation (e.g., personal injury dispute, worker’s compensation claims) 
• Criminal litigation (e.g., assessment of competency to stand trial, sanity at time of crime, sentencing options)
• Correctional facilities (e.g., offender assessment, management, rehabilitation, and reintegration)
• Juvenile justice (e.g., juvenile commitment)
• Child protection services (e.g., child custody determination)
• Police (e.g., admissible and effective witness interviewing and suspect interrogation)
• Mental health (e.g., mentally ill offenders committed as ‘forensic patients’)
• Academia (e.g., judges and juries decision-making processes)
• Private practice (e.g., preparing psychological assessment reports, expert witness on specific topics)

How to become a Forensic Psychologist?
Most jurisdictions [e.g., section 7 of the New South Wales' Psychologist Registration Act (2001)] require psychologists to register with the relevant governing bodies after their academic education and training before tendering their services to their individual clients and the general public. Consequently, registration boards (e.g., NSW Psychologists Registration Board, Prince Edward Island Psychologists Registration Board) have been established to legitimatise psychologists and their services. While these registration boards oversee the legality of registration, other professional bodies have established themselves to help meet psychologists’ clinical and professional needs. More importantly, these professional bodies give due recognition to their members’ respective specialisations that are not made obvious in the standard approach that most registration boards adopt in registering all eligible psychologists under the generic term ‘psychologists’. In Hong Kong, a number of professional bodies exist such as the Kong Psychological Society (HKPS) and the Hong Kong Clinical Psychologists Association (HKCPA) that local psychologists can become a member of to denote their specialisation.

Licensure and professional bodies are usually differentiated by their term of reference as either ‘Board’ or ‘Association/Division/Society’. Rather than detached from each other, these two sectors frequently communicate with each other on various issues pertinent to the betterment of the discipline and its services. An example is the consultation between the Prince Edward Island Psychologists Registration Board and the Psychological Association of Prince Edward Island in consolidating its Psychologists Act (1990) in the year 2002.

Registration as Forensic Psychologist usually lies with the respective professional body. Some of the most prominent professional bodies in the world for membership as forensic psychologists include:

• the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS) (http://www.apa.org/about/division/div41.html)
• the Australian College of Forensic Psychologists (APS – CFP) (http://www.groups.psychology.org.au/cfp/)
• the British Division of Forensic Psychology (BPS – DFP) (http://www.bps.org.uk/dfp/dfp_home.cfm) 
• the Canadian Criminal Justice Psychology division (CPA – CJP) (http://www.cpa.ca/sections/criminaljustice/)

While the finer criteria and conditions for membership may vary between professional bodies, most of the professional bodies listed above currently seem to require a minimum of six years of accredited tertiary education in Psychology with the fifth and sixth year being a Masters or Doctoral degree preferably in forensic psychology. This is consistent with Clements and Wakeman’s (2007) argument for doctoral education as an entry requirement for the providing forensic psychological work. Some professional bodies may further require their applicants to have already gained general membership in the society (e.g., APS-CFP) or successfully complete a prescribed training pathway (e.g., BPS-DFP). In any case, professional registration as a forensic psychologist is a stringent and rigorous process that requires the applicant to demonstrate a sufficient knowledge base and specialised training and experience in forensic psychology.

Is Forensic Psychology relevant in Hong Kong?
Whereas forensic psychology is well established overseas, its value and relevance in Hong Kong require more recognition. One of the most notable areas in which forensic psychology can make valuable contribution is crime and offending. Like all other locations, Hong Kong is not crime-free. Indeed, Hong Kong has witnessed a number of gruesome crimes over the years. These include historical cases like the serial sexual murders by Lam Kor Wan in 1982; the serial sexual murders by Lam Kwok Wai in Tuen Mun in 1993; and the so-called Hello-Kitty murder of 1999 in which the three male offenders kidnapped, tortured, and murdered their 23-year-old female victim, and after which they dismembered her body and concealed her head by sewing it into a life-sized Hello Kitty doll (Legal Reference System, 2009). More recent examples include the murder of a 16-year-old female student in May 2008 whose body was deboned by the two offenders who then disposed of parts of the body by selling them to the nearby meat-market in Shek Kip Mai, and the suspected serial killing of several sex-workers between March 2008 and early 2009. One question central to these crimes is why did the offenders offend – a topic intrinsic to forensic psychology.

Civil litigation such as personal injury and compensation claim disputes is another area in Hong Kong in which forensic psychology can make valuable contributions. Triers of facts in these cases are often confronted with the issue of malingering which refers to the intentional faking or grossly exaggerating of personal injury for ulterior gains. An example is the case of Wong Chiu Wa and Ng Yuk Chun (1999) in which two psychologists debated over the plaintiff’s claim of having developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the defendant’s wrongdoing. Indeed, forensic psychologists (e.g., Ferguson, 2004; Hall, Poirier, & Thompson, 2008; Rogers & Bender, 2003) have contributed substantially in the research into malingering especially in the context of diminished criminal responsibility due to mental illness (Denney, 2007).

At a more macro-level, forensic psychology can also assist legislative bodies in their decisions on various psycholegal issues. An obvious example is the recent proposal by the Review of Sexual Offences Sub-committee (2008) to establish a Sex Offender Register in Hong Kong. This initiative draws heavily on forensic psychological knowledge and skills in sexual offender and rehabilitation.

The issue of rehabilitating sexual as well as other types of offenders spills onto a more operational-level that involves among other things the implementation and provision of appropriate rehabilitative services. Indeed, the Hong Kong Correctional Service Department and Caritas recently have jointly convened a series of seminars to extend the range of community-based interventions available to sexual offenders. These seminars similarly drew upon a range of relevant forensic psychological knowledge and skills.

In summary, the answer to the question ‘Is Forensic Psychology relevant in Hong Kong?’ is yes. This is because many issues intrinsic to forensic psychology overseas can also be identified in Hong Kong in a variety of settings. These settings range from civil to criminal, and permeate from macro- to operational-levels.

Difficulties in identifying Forensic Psychology in Hong Kong:
Accepting that forensic psychology can make valuable contributions in the general field of psychology in Hong Kong, one logically expects it to be relatively easy to locate forensic psychologists and their services in Hong Kong. Quite the contrary, forensic psychologists appear relatively harder to be located in Hong Kong than in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This is because a number of developments conducive to the establishment and growth of the discipline in countries overseas are lacking locally. The most prominent are summarised below, along with some suggestions for future consideration:

1. Lack of formal forensic psychology programme in Hong Kong
There is evidence (e.g., Bersoff, Goodman-Delahunty, Grisso, Hans, Poythress, & Roesch, 1997; Clements & Wakeman, 2007; Ogloff, Tomkins, Bersoff, 1996) to suggest that the number of both undergraduate courses and postgraduate programmes in psychology and law is continuing to increase. Indeed, the American Psychology-Law Society (2008) website lists over 40 America-based universities that offer some form of postgraduate education in field of forensic psychology.

In contrast, there is currently a lack of formal tertiary programme in Hong Kong from which individuals can graduate as forensic psychologists. This may partly contribute to the lack of psychologists identifying themselves as forensic psychologists in their local practice. From a demand-and-supply point-of-view, this also thwarts the public’s demand for forensic psychologists to provide their services. Indeed, the majority of forensic psychological work appears to be conducted by clinical psychologists who may have received their forensic training through a variety of alternative sources such as workshops, seminars, short-courses, and on-the-job training.

An obvious solution rests with local universities and their efforts to offer formal tertiary programmes in forensic psychology. Currently, psychology graduates in Hong Kong wishing to specialise in forensic psychology are required to undertake further studies overseas such as in Australia and England where many universities offer a variety of postgraduate studies related to forensic psychology. A few examples include the University of New South Wales in Sydney which offers a Master of Forensic Psychology, and the University of Liverpool in England which offers both a Master of Science in Investigative and Forensic Psychology and a Master of Science in The Psychology of Investigation. While these programmes provide their candidates with a solid knowledge base and the skills essential to working in the field, they may be more culturally weighted towards the customs and issues specific to these countries rather than to Hong Kong. An obvious difference is working with clients who are more likely to be English-speakers than Chinese-speakers during placements.

The relevance of cross-cultural sensitivity has been emphasised by Andry (2003) in his recommendation that one of the basic professional requirements for practising forensic psychology is cross-cultural awareness, exposure, and experience with both local and international laws and customs. As such, the need for local forensic psychology programmes that specifically reflects the diversity of the Hong Kong sociolegal environment is intensified. Due to the rapid growth of the discipline and its research, an extensive list of core competencies and training protocols has been identified (e.g., Bersoff, Goodman-Delahunty, Grisso, Hans, Poythress, & Roesch, 1997; Clements & Wakeman, 2007; Ogloff, Tomkins, & Bersoff, 1996; Zaitchik, Berman, Whitworth, Platania, 2007) which Hong Kong universities can readily draw upon when developing their programmes.

Because most postgraduate programmes in forensic psychology often involve practical training in the form of supervised placements at various collaborating agencies, the partnership between universities and the local industry is therefore crucial to the delivery and success of these programmes. This is consistent with Andry’s (2003) observation that the collaboration among universities, clinics, and industry is essential to the further advancement of forensic psychology in countries like Australia since the 1950s. Many organisations exist in Hong Kong that provide forensic psychological services. The most notable include the Corrective Services Department, the Society of Rehabilitation and Crime Prevention, and the Hong Kong Police Force. Local universities may invite input from these organisations so as to enrich the practicality and applicability of the training and skills that their programmes provide.

2. Lack of a forensic psychology division in Hong Kong for membership
Currently in Hong Kong, there are mainly four divisions to represent the specific specialisations in psychology: these divisions are Clinical Psychology, Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Industrial-Organisational Psychology. A division for membership as forensic psychologist appears lacking and this has a number of effects. For example, it may under-represent the growing interests and developments in forensic psychology both locally and overseas. More importantly, it may culminate in a lack of differentiation between clinical and forensic psychology as two interconnected but distinctive disciplines. As mentioned earlier, the bulk of forensic psychological work in Hong Kong currently seems to be provided by clinical psychologists. Although certain core knowledge and skills may be similar between clinical and forensic psychology (e.g., psychopathology, assessment and therapeutic skills), there are also skills and knowledge unique to each specialisation. For example, conducting therapy with a clinically depressed outpatient group as compared to a group of prison-based violent offenders may require a distinctive set of skills and knowledge. This is not to say that clinical psychologists are not suited to conduct forensic psychological work or, vice versa, forensic psychologists are not suited to conduct clinical psychological work. Instead, the point is that those who possess both types of expertise should be given due recognition. Indeed, establishing a formal forensic psychology division that delineates a clear set of distinctive skills will allow memberships to be given to those clinical psychologists experienced in forensic psychological work so as to formally recognise their dual-expertise. The delineated set of key skills may also serve as guidelines for future training of psychologists intending to engage in forensic work as well as to prevent the blurring of disciplines by related professions. Establishing a forensic psychology division may also have the added benefit of helping to regulate and monitor the quality of forensic psychological services provided to individual clients and, regarding certain issues like offender rehabilitation and reintegration, the general public.

Sceptic may question the value of establishing a professional body for forensic psychologists in Hong Kong by asking ‘if forensic psychological services are currently being provided by registered clinical psychologists, couldn’t forensic psychology be subsumed under clinical psychology?’ This is the same as suggesting that counselling can be subsumed under either clinical or forensic psychology given that most clinical and forensic psychologists would have received training and do engage in some form of counselling. The HKPS certainly does not appear to advocate this fallacious view when it inaugurated the Division of Counselling Psychology as a separate specialisation in August 2006. It appropriately recognises that the two specialisations, although interconnected, deserve due respect and recognition for their unique sets of expert skills and knowledge.

The lack of formal tertiary forensic psychology programmes and the lack of a division for membership affect each other reciprocally. This is because prospective students are hesitant to pursue forensic psychology as a profession due to the lack of recognition by a suitable professional body in Hong Kong and a professional body for membership cannot be sustained without members. A negative vicious cycle is therefore created. The development of a formal tertiary forensic psychology programme and a respective body for professional membership may therefore break this cycle.

3. Lack of public awareness and knowledge of forensic psychology in Hong Kong
Given that the majority of forensic psychological work in Hong Kong appears to be conducted by clinical psychologists, the general public is likely to mistake forensic services as clinical services. A blurring of psychological knowledge among related professions and the general public is likely to result. On this issue, the previous suggestion of establishing a forensic psychology division that delineates the expertise expected of forensic psychological service providers can help the laypeople become familiar with the discipline and set more relevant expectations of the services they may receive. In addition, when local universities collaborate with forensic psychological service providers to develop suitable forensic psychology programmes, this may also help to promote a better understanding of the discipline in these settings. Profiling forensic psychology, explaining its relevance, charting its services, and reporting on the developments it is making overseas, may all be viable measures to help promote greater awareness and knowledge of forensic psychology among collaborating professions, employers, and the general public in Hong Kong. It is hoped that the current article helps to continue to pave the way for the eventual establishment of forensic psychology in Hong Kong.

Andrew Phung is a Forensic Psychologist from Sydney currently working as Lecturer in the Divsion of Social Studies at the Community College of City University of Hong Kong. His forensic experience includes having worked as Consultant Psychologist in Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation before joining the New South Wales's Department of Corrective Services where he conducted assessments, management, and rehabilitation of offenders including young offenders, adult offenders, suicidal offenders, mentally ill offenders, and sexual offenders.

References

American Board of Forensic Psychology. (2009). Homepage. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://www.abfp.com/

American Psychological Association. (2009). Division 41 – American Psychology-Law Society. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://www.apa.org/about/division/div41.html  

Australasian Legal Information Institute. (2009). Psychologists Act 2001. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/pa2001195/index.html  

Bersoff, D. N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Grisso, T., Hans, V. P., Poythress, N. G. & Roesch, R. G. (1997). Training in law and psychology: Models from the Villanova conference. American Psychologist, 52, 1301-1310.

Canadian Psychological Association. (2009). Criminal Justice Psychology – Membership. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://www.cpa.ca/sections/criminaljustice/membership/

Clements, C. B., & Wakeman, E. E. (2007). Raising the bar: The case of doctoral training forensic psychology. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7(2), 53-63.

Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15(6), 655-665.

Denney, R. L. (2007). Assessment of malingering in criminal forensic neuropsychological settings. In K. B. Boone (Ed.), Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment: A neuropsychological perspective (pp. 428-452). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Ferguson, K. E. (2004). Detecting malingering in forensic neuropsychological evaluations in litigants with mild traumatic brain injury. In W. T. O'Donohue and E. R. Levensky (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology: Resource for mental health and legal professionals (pp. 301-314). New York, NY, US: Elsevier Science.

Hall, H. V., Poirier, J. G., & Thompson, J. (2008). Detecting malingering and deception in forensic evaluations. In H. V. Hall (Ed.), Forensic psychology and neuropsychology for criminal and civil cases (pp. 93-130). Boca Raton, FL, US: CRC Press.

Heilbrun, K. S., & Annis, L. V. (1988). Research training in forensic psychology: National survey of forensic facilities. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19(2), 211-215.

Legal Reference System. (2009). HKSAR and CHAN MAN LOK (D1), LEUNG SHING CHO (D2), LEUNG WAI LUN (D3). Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=5156&QS=%28hello%7Ckitty%7Cmurder%7Ccase%29&TP=JU

Legislative Counsel Office. (n.d.). Psychologists Act. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://www.gov.pe.ca/law/statutes/pdf/p-27_1.pdf

Ogloff, J. R. P., Tomkins, A. J., & Bersoff, D. N. (1996). Education and training in law/criminal justice: Historical foundations, present structures, and future developments. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 200-235.

Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57(1), 5-18.

Parker, R. S. (2008). Forensic neuropsychological examination with emphasis upon the postconcussive syndrome. In H. V. Hall (Ed.), Forensic psychology and neuropsychology for criminal and civil cases (pp. 565-620). Boca Raton, FL, US: CRC Press.

Roesch, R. (2000). Forensic psychology. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychology, Vol. 3. (pp. 383-386). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

Rogers, R., & Bender, S. D. (2003). Evaluation of malingering and deception. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology, Vol. 11. (pp. 109-129). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

The Australian Psychological Society Ltd. (2009). APS College of Forensic Psychologists. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://www.groups.psychology.org.au/cfp/

The British Psychological Society. (2009). The Division of Forensic Psychology. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://www.bps.org.uk/dfp/dfp_home.cfm

The Hong Kong Psychological Society (Limited). (2009). Homepage. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://www.hkps.org.hk/index.php

Zaitchik, M. C., Berman, G. L., Whitworth, D., & Platania, J. (2007). The time is now: The emerging need for master's-level training in forensic psychology. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7(2), pp. 65-71.