Chapter 3 – False Allegations and Malingering: Fundamental Issues & Forensic Requirements

False reports of crime are not rare. Occasionally they are accompanied by malingering. Malingering refers to faking one or more symptoms of mental or physical illness for secondary gain. Secondary gain is the achieving of, or attempting to achieve, a goal not directly related to being treated for a particular symptom or illness. The gain can be just about anything, but it tends to be financial/material, emotional, revenge oriented, or to avoid responsibility. Competent forensic examiners approach their casework in such a way as to avoid being duped by the malingerer. Such practitioners are easy to recognize with respect to methodology, as they do not rely entirely on the statements of a subject or an alleged victim. Clinicians are often naive regarding the difference between a treatment setting and a forensic (legal) setting. Moreover, those without forensic training (and therefore acting outside of forensic protocols) are more susceptible to a malingerers con. Clinicians are also generally unaware that treatment and forensic roles are in direct conflict, with different goals and requirements. As a result, they are not approaching their casework with the skepticism that a forensic examiner must. The lack of clinician education, training, and experience with respect to forensic protocols can have serious consequences to not only clients in treatment, but also on the outcome of legal proceedings. Specifically, clinicians do not have the skill set or the mind-set to address malingering as a factor when evaluating their clients. Their approach is highly subjective, and that is by design. Since they are not looking for malingers, they are more likely to miss these cases when they present. Forensic professionals approach casework objective, seeking facts, evidence, and collateral corroboration of information. These are two separate roles, and they must not be conflated or otherwise misunderstood in the courtroom.