Forensic psychology faces bias claims in risk tools and courtroom testimony

June 12, 2026 - 07:01

A new academic paper is raising serious questions about bias within forensic psychology, challenging the objectivity of tools and testimony that often shape courtroom decisions. Published in the Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, the study by James Cook University Ph.D. student Rebecca Ward argues that core practices in the field, including risk assessments and expert witness statements, may be fundamentally flawed.

Ward's research suggests that widely used risk assessment instruments, which help courts determine the likelihood of a defendant reoffending, can carry hidden cultural and demographic biases. These tools, often based on statistical models, may unfairly penalize individuals from certain backgrounds, leading to harsher sentences or stricter parole conditions. The paper also scrutinizes the role of expert testimony, noting that forensic psychologists can inadvertently inject personal or systemic prejudices into their evaluations.

The implications are significant. If forensic psychology is not rigorously self-correcting, it risks undermining the very justice it aims to serve. Ward calls for a critical re-examination of how these tools are developed and applied, urging the field to adopt more transparent methods and to account for the social contexts of the individuals being assessed. The study adds to a growing body of literature questioning the infallibility of forensic science, pushing for reforms that ensure fairness does not take a back seat to convenience.