Christian vegetarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_vegetarianism 

Christian vegetarianism is the practice of keeping to a vegetarian lifestyle for reasons connected to or derived from the Christian faith. The three primary reasons are spiritual, nutritional, and ethical. The ethical reasons may include a concern for God's creation, a concern for animal rights and welfare, or both. Likewise, Christian veganism is not using any animal products for reasons connected to or derived from the Christian faith.

Pescatarianism was widespread in the early Church, among both the clergy and laity.

Among the early Judeo-Christian Gnostics the Ebionites held that John the Baptist, James the Just and Jesus were vegetarians.

Some religious orders of various Christian Churches practice pescatarianism, including the Benedictines, Franciscans, Trappists, Carthusians and Cistercians. Various Church leaders have recommended vegetarianism, including John Wesley (founder of the Methodist Church), William and Catherine Booth (founders of The Salvation Army), William Cowherd from the Bible Christian Church and Ellen G. White from the Seventh-day Adventists. Cowherd, who founded the Bible Christian Church in 1809, helped to establish the world's first Vegetarian Society in 1847.

Organizations such as the Christian Vegetarian Association (CVA) work to promote the concept.

Additionally, many Christians may choose to practice vegetarianism or veganism as their Lenten sacrifice during Lent periods.

Biblical support

Christian vegetarianism has not been a common dietary choice throughout Church history. Some have argued, however, that "there is a long-standing tradition of vegetarianism in Christian history." The two most prominent forms are a spirituality-based vegetarianism (where vegetarianism is adopted as an ascetic practice, or as a way of opposing the sin of gluttony, in the hope it will draw the person to God) and an ethically-based vegetarianism (where it is adopted for ethical reasons; for example, those to do with the treatment of non-human animals). Christian ethical vegetarianism (or veganism) usually carries with it a commitment to the normative claim that (at least some) Christians should be vegetarians. For this reason, Christian ethical vegetarians often give a scriptural justification for their position. While there are biblical passages which provide support for ethical vegetarianism, there are also passages which seem to imply that eating animals is morally permissible.

Old Testament

See also: Jewish vegetarianism

One of the most important passages for Christian vegetarians is the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis. After creating humans, God addresses them in chapter 1, verses 1:29–30 as follows:

God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food". And it was so.

In this passage, God prescribes a plant-based diet not just for humans, but for all land-based non-human animals. Christian vegetarians and vegans point out that it was this creation—where all creatures ate plants—that God then declared "very good" in verse 31. Moreover, that God's initial creation was a vegan creation suggests that this is how God intended all his creatures to live. This idea—that God intended for all his creatures to eat plants—is sometimes further supported by noting that the vision of the Peaceable Kingdom found in the Book of Isaiah 11:6–9 suggests that, one day, God will restore the creation to such a state of universal vegetarianism:

The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den. They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

Some Christian vegetarians have suggested that this eschatological view provides reasons to adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet here and now. Moreover, the point has often been made that the dominion which humans are given over the non-human animals in Genesis 1:26–28 must be understood in light of Genesis 1:29–30 which decrees a plant-based diet for all creatures. Genesis 1:26–28 has, it is acknowledged by Christian vegetarians, often been used to justify the eating of animals. But this is a mistake, they suggest. Once it is recognized that humans are given dominion over creation, and that in the very next verse humans are prescribed a plant-based diet, it will become apparent that dominion should be understood in terms of stewardship or servant-hood: humans are called to rule creation in the sense of caring for it and seeking its flourishing, just as a good Sovereign would seek the flourishing of his or her realm. In a survey of the scholarly literature on the relevant Hebrew terms, Carol J. Adams lists governing, ruling, shepherding, caring-for, nurturing, and leading about as potential ways of understanding dominion, and notes that the common characteristic of these concepts "is their benignity".

The opening chapters of Genesis are, of course, only the beginning of the biblical story. And just as there are passages which can be cited in support of a Christian vegetarianism or veganism, so there are passages which suggest that eating animals is morally permissible. The most problematic passages for Christian vegetarians are those which include an explicit permission to eat animals. Genesis 9:3–4 is the first such example. In this verse, God tells Noah and his family that animals will now be their food, although they are not to eat animal flesh which contains blood. This new situation – that of humans eating animals – is then taken largely for granted in much of the biblical narrative. Leviticus 11 records God giving the Israelites rules about what types of meat may be eaten, which implies that certain meats were acceptable. During the Exodus out of Egypt, God commanded that all of the Israelites to slaughter a lamb and eat it, and instituted the Passover as a lasting tradition to remember God's saving them.^{[Exodus 12:24]}

Some Jewish and Christian vegetarians have attempted to minimize the importance of these passages. It has been suggested, for example, that God's permitting Noah and his family to eat meat was only ever intended as a temporary permission, and was given because all the plants had been destroyed as a result of the flood. Others interpret the permission given to Noah and his family in Genesis 9:3–4, not as a free pass to kill animals for food because "no matter what you do you can never remove all the blood from the flesh of a slaughtered animal", but as an invitation to scavenge for and eat dead animals if any are found. These approaches are put under pressure, however, with the sheer number of passages which appear to presuppose the legitimacy of eating animals, and the normalcy with which meat eating is treated.

Another approach to these texts is to suggest that God reluctantly permitted the eating of animals due to human sinfulness. In other words, God permitted humans to eat non-human animals as a concession to the Fallen state of humanity. Richard Young raises the possibility that both the introduction of animals into the human diet, and the use of animals in religious sacrifices, were concessions to a Fallen humanity that were used to deal with humanity where it was at. This approach allows the Christian vegetarian or vegan to take the entire biblical witness seriously, while also holding that God's preference is for a peace and shalom throughout creation.

Other passages of relevance to the practice of vegetarianism include Numbers 11, where the Israelites tired of manna, a food of which "The Rabbis of the Talmud held that […] had whatever taste and flavor the eater desired at the time of eating" and which probably was not an animal product. Manna was given to the Israelites by God, but they complained about it and wanted meat instead.^{[Numbers 11:4–10]} They were condemned for this, although God relented and gave them meat, which then made them ill.^{[Numbers 11:32–34]} Because of their lust, the place where the incident happened became known as Kibroth Hattaavah.

A donkey temporarily given the ability to speak showed Balaam more than signs of sentience.^{[Numbers 22:21–33]}

Some people believe that the Book of Daniel also specifically promotes veganism as empowering. Daniel specifically refuses the king's "meat" (paṯbaḡ, Strong's #5698) and instead requests vegetables (zērōʿîm, Strong's #2235).^{[Daniel 1:8–16]} However, current common theology argues that in this instance Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah are rejecting food that is considered to be unholy by their faith (eating food that had been sacrificed to pagan gods), and not meat per se, despite that "at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat".^{[Daniel 1:15]}

Philo says that the Essenes, "being more scrupulous than any in the worship of God […] do not sacrifice animals […], but hold it right to dedicate their own hearts as a worthy offering". They maintained that the sacrifices "polluted" the Temple.

The Christian Vegetarian Association of the UK claims that the word "meat" is not used in any one instance in the authorized version of either the Old or New Testament as relating only to animal food (e.g. "flesh"). The CVA states that when the first English translations of the Bible were created, the word for "meat" meant food in general. When any particular kind of food was designated, it was referred to as meal, flour or grain.

According to the CVS, examples of New Testament words that were translated as "meat" include: broma ("that which is eaten"/usage: 16 times ); brosimos ("eatable"/usage: 1 time); brosis ("act of eating; that which is eaten, food; food of the souls/usage: 7 times); prosphagion ("anything eaten with bread; spoken of fish boiled or broiled"/usage: 1 time); sitometron ("a measured portion of grain or food"/usage: 1 time); trapeza ("a table on which food is placed, an eating place"/usage: 1 time); trophe ("food, nourishment"/usage: 13 times); phago ("to eat, to take food, eat a meal, devour, consume"/usage: 3 times).

New Testament

The case for Christian vegetarianism

Christian vegetarians and vegans often appeal to the ethic that Jesus embodied, and called people to emulate, in making their case for a distinctively Christian vegetarianism. To begin with, Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God, but his Kingdom didn't involve the exercise of power as humans tend to think of it. As Andrew Linzey argues, Christ's power is "the power to serve". Human beings are called to have the same mind that was found in Jesus Christ, i.e., the mind to exercise power in service.^{[Philippians 2:5–9]} And by considering Jesus's life, it is possible to get an idea of what that service means. Sarah Withrow King writes that Jesus "loved the unlovable. In first-century Palestine, the unlovable were women, children, sick people, poor people, Roman soldiers, zealots, lepers, the blind, the outcast", and so on. But today, the unlovable should include those non-human animals who are farmed for food in systems which preclude their flourishing and result in their (often painful) deaths.

Christian vegetarians also stress the importance Jesus laid on peace and inclusion. These and other aspects of Jesus's attitudes towards others are used to extract ethical principles which, according to Christian vegetarians and vegans, lead one to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. Sarah Withrow King summarizes the point like this:

Aware of the suffering and pain experienced by animals raised and killed for food, with a knowledge of the immense waste of natural resources and subsequent impact on both our fellow humans and the rest of creation, and acknowledging that flesh is not a dietary necessity for the vast majority of Western humans, why would we continue to participate in a system that dishonors God’s creation and perpetuates violence on a truly phenomenal scale?

Difficult passages

Luke 24 – Jesus's eating of a fish

Jesus's eating of fish and telling his disciples where to catch fish, before cooking it for them to eat,^{[John 21]} is a common subject in Christian ethical vegetarian and vegan writings. Jesus ate fish and is seen as completely without sin, suggesting that eating fish is not a sin. The Bible does not explicitly state that Jesus ate any meat other than fish, and Webb cites the fact that no lamb is mentioned at the Last Supper as evidence that he did not.

According to Clough and King, the fact that Jesus ate fish (and possibly other meat) only shows that, in some circumstances, it is sometimes permissible to eat some meats, but that practices in the modern, industrialized farming system (such as the mass killing of day-old male chicks from laying hens) make the consumption of meat produced in such farms morally problematic.

Andy Alexis-Baker has appealed to biblical scholarship to argue that biblical passages often need nuanced interpretation, and to guard against a wooden literalism. For example, he cites the work of Gerald O'Collins, SJ, who suggests that differences between the way Luke describes this appearance in Luke 24:41–43 and in Acts 1, and a tension between Luke 24:41–43 and 1 Corinthians 6, preclude us from reading this verse literally.

Vujicic explains this passage by appealing to a so-called synoptic principle.

Acts 10 – Peter's vision

In the tenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, there is an account of a vision given to the Apostle Peter. In this vision, Peter is shown a large sheet being lowered from heaven by its four corners. The sheet is said to contain animals of all kinds, and Peter then hears a voice (which he interprets as a command from God) saying, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat".^{[Acts 10:13]} Peter refuses, and the voice says "What God has made clean, you must not call profane".^{[Acts 10:13]}

Christian vegetarians and vegans claim that this passage is not about which animals one may or may not eat, but it is about who the Gospel is for. According to Laura Hobgood-Oster, "The vision, it seems, is not about eating animals; rather it is about extending hospitality to all humans. While animals in sacred texts are often real animals and should be considered as such, in this particular case it seems that in Peter’s vision animals symbolized human categories that exclude other humans from community."

Sarah Withrow King writes that God uses this vision to remind Peter that he is to "remove barriers of fellowship and to reconcile with those from whom we have been separated in order to further the reign of God on earth.... the vision is one of radical inclusion". John Vujicic agrees with King, noting that after receiving the vision, Peter did not eat anything. But, Vujicic writes, "In the sheet were also so called CLEAN animals. Peter could have at least selected some sheep or cattle and killed but he didn’t." According to Vujicic, the reason Peter didn't simply take up and eat a clean animal was because Peter was in fact a vegetarian. Peter is reported as describing himself as a vegetarian in the apocryphal Pseudo-Clementine Homilies.

Mark 7 – Jesus declares all foods clean

Most Christians maintain that Jesus's teaching in Mark 7^{[Mark 7:5–21]} demonstrates that Christians can eat whatever they want, that dietary choices are a matter of "Christian liberty", and that therefore vegetarianism or veganism could never be obligatory for Christians. Christian vegetarians and vegans counter that the point of Jesus's teaching in Mark 7 is that his followers should concern themselves with the status of their heart which "informs our relationship with God, with each other, and the world".

Early Christianity

New Testament

Vegetarianism appears to have been a point of contention within some early Christian circles, notably in Rome. Within the Bible's New Testament, the Apostle Paul states that people of "weak faith" "eat only vegetables",^{[Romans 14:1–4]} although he also warns both meat-eaters and vegetarians to "stop passing judgment on one another" when it comes to food in verse 13 and "[It is] good neither to eat flesh" in verse 21. Paul also said, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They […] order […] to abstain from certain foods".^{[1Timothy 4:1–3]} According to the Christian Vegetarian Association, Paul was not referring to vegetarianism, which they say was not an issue in those times, but to the practice of not eating meat from the meat market because of fear that (like the above issue involving Daniel) it was sacrificed to an idol.^{[1Corinthians 10:19–29]} "Wherefore, if meat [brōma, Strong's #1033, 'anything used as food'] make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."^{1Corinthians 8:13}

Patristic evidence

In the 4th Century some Jewish Christian groups maintained that Jesus was himself a vegetarian. Epiphanius quotes the Gospel of the Ebionites where Jesus has a confrontation with the high priest. Jesus chastises the leadership saying, "I am come to end the sacrifices and feasts of blood; and if ye cease not offering and eating of flesh and blood, the wrath of God shall not cease from you; even as it came to your fathers in the wilderness, who lusted for flesh, and did sate to their content, and were filled with rottenness, and the plague consumed them."

According to Lightfoot, "the Christianized Essennes […] condemned the slaughter of victims on grounds very different from those alleged in the Epistle of Hebrews, not because they have been superseded by the Atonement, but because they are in their very nature repulsive to God; not because they have ceased to be right, but because they never were right from the beginning".

Other early Christian historical documents observe that many influential Christians during the formative centuries of Christianity were vegetarian, though certainly not all. The Clementine homilies, a second-century work purportedly based on the teachings of the Apostle Peter, states, "The unnatural eating of flesh meats is as polluting as the heathen worship of devils, with its sacrifices and its impure feasts, through participation in it a man becomes a fellow eater with devils." While the Didascalia does not itself endorse vegetarianism, it records a group of individuals who believe they "should not eat flesh, and said that a man must not eat anything that has a soul in it."

Although early Christian vegetarianism appears to have been downplayed in favor of more "modern" Christian culture, the practice of vegetarianism appears to have been very widespread in early Christianity, both in the leadership and among the laity. Origen's work Contra Celsum quotes Celsus commenting vegetarian practices among Christians he had contact with. Although not vegetarian himself and vehemently against the idea that Christians must be vegetarians, Augustine nevertheless wrote that those Christians who "abstain both from flesh and from wine" are "without number".

Churches and movements

Historical developments

Followers of the Gnostic sect known as Catharism practiced pescatarianism as early as the Middle Ages. The Bible Christian Church founded by Reverend William Cowherd in 1809 followed a vegetarian diet. Cowherd was one of the philosophical forerunners of the Vegetarian Society. Cowherd encouraged members to abstain from eating of meat as a form of temperance. Cowherd emphasized that vegetarianism was good for health, whilst eating meat was unnatural and likely to cause aggression. Later he is reputed to have said "If God had meant us to eat meat, then it would have come to us in edible form [as is the ripened fruit]."

Ellen G. White, vegetarian and co-founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The Seventh-day Adventists present a health message that recommends vegetarianism and expects abstinence from pork, shellfish and other foods proscribed as "unclean" in Leviticus. A number of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, including Joseph Bates and Ellen White adopted a vegetarian diet during the nineteenth century, and Ellen White reportedly received visions regarding the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. More recently, members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in California have been involved in research into longevity due to their healthy lifestyle, which includes maintaining a vegetarian diet. This research has been included within a National Geographic article. Another denomination with common origin, the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement recommends vegetarianism as a part of fellowship, with many of its members being practicing vegans as well. Typically, however, these sabbatarian pro-vegetarian Christian fellowships do not "require vegetarianism as a test of fellowship."

The Word of Wisdom is a dietary law given to adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement (also known as Mormonism), which states that "flesh also of beasts and of fowls of the air... are to be used sparingly," and that "it is pleasing unto [God] that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine". Unlike injunctions against tobacco and alcohol, compliance with this part of the Doctrine and Covenants has never been made mandatory by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the largest Latter Day Saint denomination. Many LDS Church leaders have expressed their views on the subject of meat, but since Joseph F. Smith became church president in 1901, emphasis on refraining from meat has largely been dropped. An official church publication states, "[m]odern methods of refrigeration now make it possible to preserve meat in any season". As recently as 2012, official church spokesperson Michael Otterson stated "the church has also encouraged limiting meat consumption in favor of grains, fruits and vegetables." Of note is that the LDS Church owns and operates Deseret Ranches in central Florida, which is one of the largest cow-calf operations in the United States.

Some members of the Religious Society of Friends (also known as Quakers) practice vegetarianism or veganism as a reflection of the Peace Testimony, extending non-violence towards animals. Historically, the early vegetarian movement had many Quaker promoters. Some Ranter groups – non-conformist Christian groups that existed in 17th-century England – were vegetarian.

Roman Catholic monastic orders such as the Carthusians and Cistercians follow a pescatarian diet. Carmelites and others following the Rule of St. Albert also maintain a vegetarian diet, although the old and sick are permitted to eat meat according to this rule of life.

Christian anarchists, such as Leo Tolstoy, Ammon Hennacy, and Théodore Monod, extend the Christian principles of compassion and nonviolence through following a vegetarian diet.

Contemporary movements

The Christian Vegetarian Association (CVA) is an international, non-denominational Christian vegetarian organization that promotes responsible stewardship of God's creation through plant-based eating. The CVA produced the 2006 film Honoring God’s Creation.

Sarx is a UK-based organization which aims to "empower Christians to champion the cause of animals and live peacefully with all God’s creatures". Sarx publishes interviews with Christian vegans and vegetarians on its website, and provides people to speak at Churches in the UK on topics such as Christianity and veganism, animal welfare and faith, creation and animals.

CreatureKind is an organization which exists "to encourage Christians to recognize faith-based reasons for caring about the well-being of fellow animal creatures used for food, and to take practical action in response". It was founded by David Clough, Professor of Theological Ethics at the University of Chester, and is directed by Clough and Sarah Withrow King, an American author and deputy directory of the Sider Center at Eastern University. CreatureKind produces a course for churches to do which facilitates church groups to think through how Christians should respond to and treat animals.

Catholic Concern for Animals (CCA) is a charity which calls Catholics "to cherish and care for all of [God's] creation". CCA has for "many years" promoted a vegetarian/vegan diet as a way of caring for creation, in particular animals.

The group Evangelicals for Social Action have suggested that a vegan diet is a way of demonstrating Christian love and compassion to farmed animals, and argue in particular that this is what a consistently pro-life ethic looks like.

Christian Vegetarians and Vegans UK is an organization seeking to promote a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle in the Church in the UK.

Partial fasting and temporary abstinence

Eastern Christianity

During Lent some Christian communities, such as Orthodox Christians in the Middle East, undertake partial fasting eating only one light meal per day. For strict Greek Orthodox Christians and Copts, all meals during this 40-day period are prepared without animal products and are essentially vegan. Unlike veganism, however, abstaining from animal products during Lent is intended to be only temporary and not a permanent way of life.

Eastern Orthodox laity traditionally abstains from animal products on Wednesdays (because, according to Christian tradition, Judas betrayed Jesus on the Wednesday prior to the Crucifixion of Jesus) and Fridays (because Jesus is thought to have been crucified on the subsequent Friday), as well as during the four major fasting periods of the year: Great Lent, the Apostles' Fast, the Dormition Fast and the Nativity Fast. Catholic laity traditionally abstain from animal flesh on Fridays and through the Lenten season leading up to Easter (sometimes being required to do so by law, see fasting and abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church), some also, as a matter of private piety, observe Wednesday abstinence. Fish is not considered proper meat in any case (see pescetarianism, though the Eastern Orthodox allow fish only on days on which the fasting is lessened but meat still not allowed). For these practices, "animal rights" are no motivation and positive environmental or individual health effects only a surplus benefit; the actual reason is to practice mortification and some marginal asceticism.

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic monastics abstain from meat year-round, and many abstain from dairy and seafood as well. Through obedience to the Orthodox Church and its ascetic practices, the Orthodox Christian seeks to rid himself or herself of the passions, or the disposition to sin.

Western Christianity

A Lenten supper prepared according to the diet specified in the Daniel Fast: this particular meal includes black bean spaghetti, quinoa, and mixed vegetables composed of cucumbers, mushrooms, microgreens, arugula, and baby carrots.

In Western Christianity, fasting is observed during the forty-day season of Lent by many communicants of the Catholic Church, Lutheran Churches, Anglican Communion, Methodist Churches and the Western Orthodox Churches to commemorate the fast observed by Christ during his temptation in the desert. While some Western Christians fast during the entire season of Lent, Ash Wednesday and Good Friday are emphasized by Western certain Christian denominations as especially important days of fasting within the Lenten season. In many Western Christian Churches, including those of the Catholic, Methodist and Baptist traditions, certain congregations have committed to undertaking the Daniel Fast during the whole season of Lent, in which believers practice abstinence from meat, lacticinia and alcohol for the entire forty days of the liturgical season.

According to Canon Law, Roman Catholics are required to abstain from meat (defined as all animal flesh and organs, excluding water animals) on Ash Wednesday and all Fridays of Lent including Good Friday. Ash Wednesday and Good Friday are also fast days for Catholics ages 18 to 60, in which one main meal and two half-meals are eaten, with no snacking. Canon Law also obliges Catholics to abstain from meat on the Fridays of the year outside of Lent (excluding certain holy days) unless, with the permission of the local conference of bishops, another penitential act is substituted. Exceptions are allowed for health and necessity like manual labor and not causing offense when being a guest. The restrictions on eating meat on these days is solely as an act of penance and not because of a religious objection to eating meat. In 1966, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops the conference of bishops has made substitution of a different penitential or charitable act an option for ordinary Fridays in their territory. After previous abolition, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales restored the meatless ordinary Friday requirement for their territory effective September, 2011. A popular misconception is that Pope Gregory I (who ruled from 590 to 604, and who is also a canonized saint) declared that rabbits were not meat. This is apparently a corruption of a manuscript in which Saint Gregory of Tours described one person (who was also ill and might not have been Catholic) eating a rabbit fetus during Lent. The rules are widely ignored; a 2016 survey found that only 62% of U.S. Catholics said they avoid meat on Fridays during Lent.

A Handbook for the Discipline of Lent delineates the following Lutheran fasting guidelines:

1. Fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday with only one simple meal during the day, usually without meat.
2. Refrain from eating meat (bloody foods) on all Fridays in Lent, substituting fish for example.
3. Eliminate a food or food group for the entire season. Especially consider saving rich and fatty foods for Easter.
4. Consider not eating before receiving Communion in Lent.
5. Abstain from or limit a favorite activity (television, movies, etc.) for the entire season, and spend more time in prayer, Bible study, and reading devotional material.

It is the practice of many Lutherans to abstain from alcohol and meat on the Fridays of Lent; a Black Fast has been historically kept by Lutherans on Good Friday.

In Anglicanism, the Book of Common Prayer prescribes certain days as days for fasting and abstinence from meat, "consisting of the 40 days of Lent, the ember days, the three Rogation days (the Monday to Wednesday following the Sunday after Ascension Day, which is also known as Holy Thursday), and all Fridays in the year (except Christmas, if it falls on a Friday)":

A Table of the Vigils, Fasts, and Days of Abstinence, to be Observed in the Year.

The eves (vigils) before:

The Nativity of our Lord.

The Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin.

Easter Day.

Ascension Day.

Pentecost.

St. Matthias.

St. John Baptist.

St. Peter.

St. James.

St. Bartholomew.

St. Matthew.

St. Simon and St. Jude.

St. Andrew.

St. Thomas.

All Saints' Day.

Note: if any of these Feast-Days fall upon a Monday, then the Vigil or Fast-Day shall be kept upon the Saturday, and not upon the Sunday next before it.

Days of Fasting, or Abstinence.

I. The Forty Days of Lent.

II. The Ember Days at the Four Seasons, being the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after the First Sunday in Lent, the Feast of Pentecost, September 14, and December 13.

III. The Three Rogation Days, being the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, before Holy Thursday, or the Ascension of our Lord.

IV. All the Fridays in the Year, except Christmas Day.

Methodism's principal liturgical book The Sunday Service of the Methodists (put together by John Wesley), as well as The Directions Given to Band Societies (25 December 1744), mandate fasting and abstinence from meat on all Fridays of the year (except Christmas Day, if it falls on a Friday).

Forensic psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_psychology 

Forensic psychology involves the generation of both basic and applied psychological science relevant to the law, as well as application of psychological knowledge and methods to help answer legal questions arising in civil, criminal, contractual, or administrative proceedings. Historically, forensic psychology was defined narrowly as the application of clinical psychological knowledge to criminal cases or questions in criminal justice settings. Contemporary definitions of forensic psychology recognize that several subfields of psychology apply "the scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge of psychology to the law." While the American Psychological Association (APA) officially recognized forensic psychology as a specialty under the narrower definition in 2001, the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists were revised in 2013 and now reference several psychology subdisciplines, such as social, clinical, experimental, counseling, and neuropsychology).

History

See also: History of psychology

 

Front cover of an early edition of Hugo Muensterberg's "On the Witness Stand" book

Psychology was established in the U.S. in 1879 by American students returning home from studying in German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt's experimental psychology lab. Many of these returning students had interests in law (e.g. testimonies, individual's functional capacity) in addition to the schools of the field taught by Wundt. Nonetheless, the concept of psychology being officially used in legal settings wasn't introduced until several years later, in the first decade of the 20th century by Hugo Münsterberg, the first director of Harvard's psychological laboratory and founder of applied psychology. Though he attempted to imbue his expertise in the legal field, such as through his On the Witness Stand book, his approach was reported as being condescending and abrasive, causing anger and scrutinization from the legal community toward his research, such as by the influential legal scholar John Henry Wigmore.

Following this backlash, psychology was widely left untouched by legal professionals until post-WWII, when clinical psychology became more accepted as a legitimate health profession and became more successful in contributing to legal proceedings. Whereas cases such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) led to the appreciation of psychology's ability to influence legal decisions, it was cases like Jenkins v. United States (1962) that truly legitimized it. In this latter case, Justice David Bazelon of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld, for the first time - and relatively uniquely internationally - that psychologists could testify as medical experts about mental illness.

The American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS) was created in 1969 and was later converted into Division 41 of the APA in 1980. As the field continued to grow, more organizations dedicated to the study and application of psychology to the law began to develop. In 1976 the American Board of Forensic Psychology (ABFP) was chartered and eventually became a part of the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP) in 1985. This merging marked the development of the first certification for psychologists wanting to work within the field of forensic psychology. Later organizations and conferences aided in solidifying the development of forensic psychology, such as the American Academy of Forensic Psychology and the National Invitational Conference on Education and Training in Forensic Psychology (1995). Forensic psychology was then officially recognized as a professional specialty under the APA in 2001.

Forensic psychology in popular culture

Within recent years, forensic psychology has seen a large spike in popularity in the media and among younger generations. For example, many recent docuseries on Netflix feature forensic psychological content, including Making a Murderer and Sins of our Mother. Many undergraduate students are drawn to this subject under the misconception that forensic psychology is primarily used for criminal profiling. TV shows and movies such as Criminal Minds, Manhunter, Mindhunter, and Silence of The Lambs have widely popularized the practice of criminal profiling, particularly within the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU). Despite the excitement given to the idea of a career in criminal profiling, students who show an interest in this particular aspect of forensic psychology come to find that the practice of criminal profiling is rarely used outside of the BAU. They also find that there are many forensic psychology practices outside criminal proceedings.

Training and education

In a broad sense, forensic psychology is a subset of applied psychology. Forensic psychologists may hold a Ph.D. or Psy.D. in clinical psychology, counseling psychology, social psychology, organizational psychology, school psychology, or experimental psychology. There are no specific license requirements in the United States to be a forensic psychologist. If one is a clinical-forensic psychologist, one would need a license to practice clinical or "health services", but an additional license to practice clinical-forensic psychology is not required. Psychologists who do not provide healthcare services do not need to be licensed at all in some states. Forensic psychologists ideally have some years of postdoctoral experience, training, and supervision or mentoring in forensic psychology.

In other countries, training and practitioner requirements may vary. In the United Kingdom, for example, a person must obtain the Graduate Basis for Registration with the British Psychological Society – normally through an undergraduate degree. This would be followed by Stages 1 (academic) and 2 (supervised practice) of the Diploma in Forensic Psychology (which would normally take 3 years full-time and 4 years part-time). Assessment occurs via examination, research, supervised practice, and the submission of a portfolio showing expertise across a range of criminological and legal applications of psychology. Once qualified as a "chartered" psychologist (with a specialism in forensic psychology), a practitioner must engage in continued professional development and demonstrate how much and of what kind, each year, in order to renew their practicing certificate.

Roles of a forensic psychologist

Practice/direct service

Evaluations and assessments

Evaluations and assessments are completed by forensic psychologists to assess a person's psychological state for legal purposes. Reasons for completing these evaluations can involve acquiring information for criminal court (such as insanity or incompetence), for criminal sentencing or parole hearings (often regarding a potential intellectual disability that prevents sentencing or one's risk of recidivism), for family court (including child custody or parental termination cases), or civil court (involving, for example, personal injury or competence to manage one's financial affairs). It is important to note that while a forensic psychologist is responsible for assessing and reporting results of an evaluation, they do not make decisions on "ultimate issues" such as competence to stand trial or service-connected disability for U.S. military veterans.

Forensic psychological evaluations do not constitute treatment or the provision of healthcare services.

Treatment

Treatment providers may be asked to administer psychological interventions to those who require or request services in both criminal and civil cases. In regard to criminal cases, forensic psychologists can work with individuals who have already been sentenced to reduce recidivism, which refers to one's likelihood of repeating his or her offense. Other interventions that may be implemented in these settings are substance use disorder treatment, sex offender treatment, treatment for a mental illness, or anger management courses. As for civil proceedings, treatment providers may have to treat families going through divorce or custody cases. They may also provide treatment to individuals who have suffered psychological injuries as a result of some kind of trauma. Treatment providers and evaluators work in the same types of settings: forensic and state psychiatric hospitals, mental health centers, and private practices.

Consultations

Providing consultations allows forensic psychologists to apply psychological expertise and research to help law enforcement, attorneys, and other legal professionals or proceedings better understand human behavior (e.g. criminal, witness, victim, jury), civil processes, effects of trauma or other life events, and so on. If working as a consultant, a forensic psychologist is able to be involved in legal proceedings through responsibilities such as reviewing court records (such as a defendant's psychosocial history or assess mitigating or aggravating factors in a case), serving as a jury consultant (organizing focus groups, shadow juries, mock juries, or helping with the voir dire proceedings), and assessment without testimony (in which results of a defendant's evaluation are not disclosed to the prosecution team, allowing the defense team to develop a defense strategy), among others. Essentially, consultations can take a number of forms, including the common ones below:

Law enforcement consultations may take the form of assisting with criminal profiling, developing hiring procedures and methods, determining the psychological fitness of returning officers, or simply lending expertise on certain criminal behaviors. There are several methods and approaches related to criminal profiling, but there is a lot of skepticism and criticism about the efficiency and accuracy of criminal profiling in general. A couple common approaches are the scientific approach, which includes the FBI's Crime Scene Analysis and Canter's Investigative Psychology, and the intuitive approach, which includes Tukey's Behavioral Evidence Analysis.

Trial consultants are psychologists who work with legal professionals, such as attorneys, to aid in case preparation. This includes jury selection, development of case strategy, and witness preparation. Forensic psychologists working as trial consultants rely on research in order to best advise the individuals they are working with. Because trial consultants are often hired by one specific side in a trial, these psychologists are faced with many ethical issues. It is the responsibility of the psychologist to remain neutral when consulting – in other words, the consultant must not choose a side to support and consequentially omit or create information that would be beneficial to one side or another. Prior to accepting a case to work on, it is important that the forensic psychologist weigh the responsibilities of consulting on that case with the ethical guidelines put in place for the field of forensic psychology.

Expert testimony about matters relating to psychology is also an area in which forensic psychologists play an active role. Unlike fact witnesses, who are limited to testifying about what they know or have observed, expert witnesses have the ability to express further knowledge of a situation or topic because, as their name suggests, they are presumed to be "experts" in a certain topic and possess specialized knowledge about it. Procedural and legal rules guide expert testimony, which include that the evidence must be relevant to the case, the method the expert used must be valid and reliable, and that the evidence will help the trier of fact. An expert can be deposed by opposing counsel to discover what they plan to say in court, and attorneys have the opportunity to raise a challenge to the admissibility of the expert's testimony if there are questions about its relevance, or its validity and reliability (in the United States - the rules vary by country and jurisdiction). Regardless of who calls in the expert, it is the judge who determines whether or not the expert witness will be accepted through a voir dire process of qualification.

Research

Forensic psychology researchers make scientific discoveries relevant to psychology and the law and they also sometimes provide expert witness testimony. These professionals usually have an advanced degree in psychology (most likely a PhD). These professionals may be employed in various settings, which include colleges and universities, research institutes, government or private agencies, and mental health agencies. Researchers test hypotheses empirically regarding issues related to psychology and the law, such as jury research and research on mental health law and policy evaluation. Their research may be published in forensic psychology journals such as Law and Human Behavior or Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, as well as more broadly in basic psychology journals. Some famous psychologists in the field include Scott Lilienfeld who was widely known for his scholarship on psychopathology and psychopathy, Saul Kassin who is widely known for studying false confessions, Jennifer Skeem who is widely known for studying justice-involved people with mental illness, Michael Saks who is known for his contributions to jury research and improvements to forensic science, Barbara Spellman who is known for her cognitive psychology-law work as well as for her open science leadership, and Elizabeth Loftus and Gary Wells who are both known for their research on eyewitness memory.

Education and advocacy

Academic forensic psychologists engage in teaching, researching, training, and supervision of students, among other education-related activities. These professionals also have an advanced degree in psychology (most likely a PhD) and are most often employed at colleges and universities. In addition to holding professorships, forensic psychologists may engage in education through presenting research, hosting talks relating to a particular subject, or engaging with and educating the community about a relevant forensic psychology topic. Advocacy is another form of education, in which forensic psychologists use psychological research to influence laws and policies. These may be related to certain movements, such as Black Lives Matter or the Me Too movement, or may even be related to certain civil rights that are being overlooked.

Forensic psychological evaluations

Common types of evaluations

Forensic assessment of competence

Competence, in a legal setting, refers to the defendant's ability to appreciate and understand the charges against them and what is happening in the legal proceedings, as well as their ability to help the lawyer understand and defend their case. While competence is assessed by a psychologist, its concern regarding a defendant is typically voiced by the lawyer. Though it is the psychologist's responsibility to assess for competence, it is ultimately up to the judge to decide whether the defendant is competent or not. If the defendant is found incompetent to stand trial, the psychologist must then give a recommendation on whether or not the defendant can be restored to competence through treatment or if the charges should be dropped completely due to incompetence. A couple potential causes of incompetence include certain types of brain damage or the occurrence of a psychotic episode preventing the individual from registering the reality around them.

Several cases were instrumental in developing a standard for competence, as well as for determining the rights of an individual deemed incompetent to stand trial. Youtsey v. United States (1899) was one of the cases that set the standard for competence, with the judge ruling that trying or sentencing an individual deemed incompetent violates their human rights. Despite this ruling, no official guidelines for determining and sentencing matters of competence were developed. In Dusky v. United States (1960), the case upheld the Youtsey v. United States ruling and set specific criteria for competence. These include having a rational and factual understanding of court proceedings and being able to consult with an attorney in a rational manner. The case of Weiter v. Settle (1961) resulted in the decision that a psychologist's opinion in a competency hearing is considered "opinion testimony." Additionally, guidelines were put in place to accurately evaluate competency. The eight guidelines established include requirements that the defendant appreciates one's own presence in relation to time, place, and things; understands that they are in a Court of Justice, charged with a criminal offense; recognizes that there is a Judge who presides over the Court; understands that there is a Prosecutor who will try to convict them of criminal charges; understands that they have a lawyer who will defend them against that charge; knows that they are expected to tell their attorney what they were doing at the time of the alleged offense; understands that a jury will determine whether they are guilty or innocent of the charges; and has sufficient memory to discuss issues related to the alleged offense and the court proceedings. As time has progressed, more cases have added to these guidelines and expectations when evaluating competency.

Forensic assessment of insanity

Insanity, as opposed to competence, refers to an individual's mental state at the time of the crime rather than at the time of the trial. According to legal principles of insanity, it is only acceptable to judge, find someone criminally responsible, and punish a defendant if that individual was sane at the time of the crime. In order to be considered sane, the defendant must have exhibited both mens rea and actus reus. Mens rea, translated to "guilty mind", indicates that the individual exhibited free will and some intent to do harm at the time of the crime. Actus reus refers to the voluntary committing of an unlawful act. The insanity defense acknowledges that, while an unlawful act did occur, the individual displayed a lack of mens rea. The burden of proof in determining if a defendant is insane lies with the defense team. A notable case relating to this type of assessment is that of Ford v. Wainwright, in which it was decided that forensic psychologists must be appointed to assess the competency of an inmate to be executed in death penalty cases.

There are various definitions of insanity acknowledged within the legal system. The M'Naghten/McNaugton rule (1843) defines insanity as the individual not understanding the nature and quality of his or her acts or that these acts were wrong due to a mental disease or defect. This is also referred to as the cognitive capacity test. Meanwhile, the Durham Test (established in Durham v. United States, 1954) states that one can be declared insane if the actions were caused by a mental disorder. The vague nature of this description causes this definition to only be used in one state (New Hampshire). The final definition acknowledged within the courts is the Brawner Rule (U.S. v. Brawner, 1972), also referred to as the American Law Institute Standard. This definition posits that, due to a mental disease or defect, an individual is considered insane if unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of an act and are unable to conform their behavior to the dictates of the law.

Evaluating insanity involves using crime scene analysis to determine the mental state at the time of the crime, establishing a diagnosis, interviewing the defendant and any other relevant witnesses, and verifying impressions of the defendant. Challenges associated with this type of assessment involve defendant malingering, determining the defendant's past mental state, the chance that different experts may come to different conclusions depending on the assessment method used, and the fact that it is very common for society to label any psychological disorder as insane (though few actually fall into this category; insanity primarily involves psychotic disorders).

Risk assessment

Risk assessment evaluates how dangerous an individual is or could be and the risk of them re-offending after being released, also referred to as recidivism. Typically, recidivism refers to violent or sex offending behavior. Risk assessments affect the possibility of an inmate receiving parole or being released from prison and involve two general methods. The clinical prediction method involves using clinical judgement and experience to predict risk, while the actuarial prediction method utilizes a research-based formula to predict risk. Two specific methods of risk assessment involve the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORGA), both created by Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier in 1998.

Other types of evaluations

While insanity and competency assessments are among the most common criminal assessments administered within the legal system, there are several other types implemented. Some of these include death penalty case assessments, assessments of child sexual abuse, assessments for child custody or divorce cases, and civil court assessments.

Distinction between forensic and therapeutic evaluation

A forensic psychologist's interactions with and ethical responsibilities to the client differ widely from those of a psychologist dealing with a client in a clinical setting.

• Scope. Rather than the broad set of issues a psychologist addresses in a clinical setting, a forensic psychologist addresses a narrowly defined set of events or interactions of a nonclinical nature.
• Importance of client's perspective. A clinician places primary importance on understanding the client's unique point of view, while a forensic psychologist is interested in accuracy, and the client's viewpoint is secondary.
• Voluntariness. Usually, in a clinical setting, a psychologist is dealing with a voluntary client. A forensic psychologist evaluates clients by order of a judge or at the behest of an attorney.
• Autonomy. Voluntary clients have more latitude and autonomy regarding the assessment's objectives. Any assessment usually takes their concerns into account. The objectives of a forensic examination are confined by the applicable statutes or common law elements that pertain to the legal issue in question.
• Threats to validity. While the client and therapist are working toward a common goal, although unconscious distortion may occur, in the forensic context there is a substantially greater likelihood of intentional and conscious distortion.
• Relationship and dynamics. While therapeutic interactions work toward developing a trusting, empathic therapeutic alliance, a forensic psychologist may not ethically nurture the client or act in a "helping" role, as the forensic evaluator has divided loyalties and there are substantial limits on confidentiality they can guarantee the client. A forensic evaluator must always be aware of manipulation in the adversary context of a legal setting. These concerns mandate an emotional distance that is unlike a therapeutic interaction.
• Pace and setting. Unlike therapeutic interactions which may be guided by many factors, the forensic setting with its court schedules, limited resources, and other external factors places great time constraints on the evaluation without opportunities for reevaluation. The forensic examiner focuses on the importance of accuracy and the finality of legal dispositions.

Psychological autopsy

When the nature or cause of death remain unknown from the immediate and apparent features of death, especially due to the lack of direct evidence to determine whether the unnatural death is accidental, suicide, or murder, a psychological or psychiatric autopsy can be employed as an effective tool for death investigations.

The 'psychological autopsy' is a procedure for investigating a person's death by reconstructing what the person thought, felt, and did preceding their death. This reconstruction is based upon information gathered from personal documents, police reports, medical and coroner's records, and face to face interviews with family members, friends, and others who had contact with the person before the death.

While a medico-legal autopsy examines the body of the deceased, a psychological autopsy considers the mental state of the deceased. When there is conflict or absence of leads which indicate the circumstances pointing towards more than one possibility of mode of death (more specifically, the manner of death is suspicious and giving divergent indications), this tool of investigation can be employed with team work of forensic psychiatrists, forensic pathologists, toxicologists, and psychologists to compile information about the behaviors and motive to distinguish among accident, homicide, and suicide as possible modes of death.

The theory underlying the concept of psychological autopsy is that most suicide victims communicate their intentions in some way. While the technique was developed as a clinical tool for predicting suicide risk, its forensic application has been the retrospective determination of the cause or circumstances surrounding a death. This branch of investigation was originally developed by Edwin Shneidman and his colleagues in the Los Angeles Suicide Prevention Center during the 1950s.

Methodology

The psychological autopsy methodology involves two main elements: extensive interviews of family members and other close intimates, and collecting all possible medical, psychiatric, and other relevant documents of the deceased.

Psychological autopsies review the specifics of the death and the decedent for suicide risk factors. Shneidman for example, has identified 14 areas for inquiry in psychological autopsy studies. These areas include:

1. Identifying information (e.g., age, marital status, religious practices, occupation)
2. Details of the death
3. Brief outline of the victim's history (e.g., previous suicide attempts)
4. Death history of the victim's family (e.g., family history of suicide, affective illness)
5. Description of the personality and lifestyle of the victim
6. The victim's typical pattern of reaction to stress, emotional upsets, and periods of disequilibrium
7. Recent stressors, tensions, or anticipations of troubles
8. The role of alcohol and drugs in the overall lifestyle of the victim and their death
9. The nature of the victim's interpersonal relationship
10. Changes in the victim's habits and routines before death (e.g., hobbies, appetite, sexual patterns, and other life routines)
11. Information relating to the life side of the victim (e.g., upswings, successes, plans)
12. Assessment of intention
13. Rating of lethality
14. Reaction of informants to the victim's death, and
15. Any comments or special features of the case.

The information collected from the interviews could provide relevant information in an attempt to reconstruct the deceased's background, personal relationships, personality traits, and lifestyle. Psychological autopsies have proved helpful in identifying and explicating proximate causation, determining the role of a variety of factors in bringing about a suicide death.

The usual sources of psychological information are:

1. Suicide note – Interpretation of the suicide note is important to confirm suicide, abetment of suicide, or homicide, or to identify causation. The correct interpretation of a suicide note requires a handwriting expert to confirm that the note is written by the subject as its contents may reveal the following:
   1. Intention – It is reflected from the suicide note that the individual has killed themself. This intention is strengthened by a history of previous attempts.
   2. Physical illness – The changes in handwriting; for example, tremors (due to alcoholism, drug poisoning, fear, or anxiety) or changes in the size of letters (gradually becoming smaller due to intake of antipsychotic drug) may indicate presence of physical illness.
   3. Psychiatric illness – The contents of the suicide note may indicate the presence of a psychiatric disorder such as schizophrenia.
   4. Situational factors – Whether the individual is threatened or the suicide note is dictated.
   Example: good content by an illiterate individual, repeated cutting or suicide pact (suicide note signed by more than one individual or simple contents in different notes), or suicide intent of another person or abetment of suicide.
2. School/college records – Information such as a change in academic performance or recent absences and tardiness.
3. Medical records – Family history, visits to physician, illness, medication taken, and referrals to specialists.
4. Police records – May give information about previous attempts of suicide and involvement in anti-social activities.

The psychological autopsy is accomplished through reconstruction of the deceased's character and personality from information gained from a variety of sources. This reconstructed character and personality is then used to make a retrospective prediction of the likelihood of the deceased having committed a particular act. If the data collected and the analysis of the same conclude that there is no indication of suicide, the possibility of the deceased committing suicide can be ruled out.

Advantages and disadvantages

By collecting information from the people who are maintaining direct or indirect interactions, the personality of the deceased is most accurately described and assessed, which becomes the most significant input to evaluate the thought process and traits of the deceased prior to death. The evaluation involves the understanding of the intention and motive, if it is a suicide. If the autopsy negates the suicide, it will be useful for the investigators to proceed with the investigation of death by excluding the theory of suicide in the incident. The psychological autopsy provides a firm indication to which directions the death investigation should proceed.

Though the psychological autopsy can be an effective tool for suspicious death investigations, it is not free from disadvantages and limitations. The availability and selection of experts who have research oriented experience is always an important hurdle to get over. Professional ethics and physician-patient privileges are always a difficult barrier to getting valuable and important inputs. The end process of the psychological autopsy is the retrospective prediction of whether or not the subject has committed suicide. This process is being carried out by experts who had no occasion to meet or interview the deceased in their lifetime. The experts gather the information from third parties and documents, which could be considered as hearsay information which diminishes the evidentiary value. There is no standardised operational method to derive conclusions out of the information collected during the course of the psychological autopsy. It has to be drawn up by the professional and is largely based on their experience to correlate the inputs.

The psychological autopsy is one of the most effective tools in death investigations. It could act as a firm stepping stone for investigating a suspicious unnatural death where direct evidence is not available. Systematically carried out psychological autopsies could provide more scientific and accurate leads in death investigations.

In India, the employment of this branch of forensic psychiatry is less used. On 12/02/2016, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, Kerala, has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to employ a forensic psychological autopsy in the death investigation of Qazi C.M.Abdulla Maulavi of Chembarika. Thereafter in Sunanda Pushkar Death case, the Special Team for investigation has performed a psychiatric autopsy and concluded that it was a suicide. Another incident of employing this tool was in the Burari Death case in Delhi, in which 11 members of a family were found dead by hanging on 01/07/2018. The question in these cases to be answered was whether it is a suicide or homicide. The availability of experts in this area including experienced suicidologists is a concern of the time, as numerous reports are there regarding the increasing incidents of suicide. So there shall be sufficient concern for the state of establish research centres and institutions concentrated in this branch of forensic psychiatry.

Another aspect of concern is the extension of rigor to the hearsay rule in accepting the information and conclusions of psychological autopsies. The opinion evidence given by the experts who conducted the systematic psychological autopsy shall be given due weight taking the purview under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Ethics in forensic psychology

The ethical recommendations and expectations outlined for forensic psychology specifically are listed in the APA's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology. These guidelines involve reminders that forensic psychologists should value integrity, impartiality, and fairness, as well as avoid conflicts of interest when possible. These conflicts of interest may arise in situations in which the psychologist is working as a consultant to one side or another in a court case, when the psychologist is required to testify or evaluate something that collides with their own beliefs or values, or when a psychologist is faced with the decision of choosing between playing the role of an individual's evaluator or treatment provider in a case. This final conflict of interest also relates to the ethical guidelines relating to having multiple relationships with clients. As a standard of ethics, forensic psychologists are expected to offer a certain amount of reduced fee or pro bono services for individuals who may not be able to afford hiring a psychologist for a court case otherwise. Other ethical guidelines involve receiving informed consent from clients before communicating information regarding their treatment or evaluations, respecting and acknowledging privacy, confidentiality, and privilege among clients, remaining impartial and objective when involved in a trial, and weighing the moral and ethical costs of complying with any court orders that may conflict with professional standards.

Salary of a forensic psychologist

There is a wide range of pay for individuals in the forensic psychology field. In the United States, the median annual income is $125,000 - $149,999, and the pay can range from $50,000 (entry-level) a year to more than $350,000 a year. There are also pay differences for men and women, where women forensic psychologists earn $0.83 for every $1.00 men make. The pay for a forensic psychologist can also vary by the state that the forensic psychologist works in.

Notable research in forensic psychology

• Garry, Maryanne; Manning, Charles G.; Loftus, Elizabeth F.; Sherman, Steven J. (1996-06). "Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 3 (2): 208–214. doi:10.3758/BF03212420. ISSN 1069-9384.
• Harris, Paige B.; Boccaccini, Marcus T.; Murrie, Daniel C. (2015-08). "Rater differences in psychopathy measure scoring and predictive validity". Law and Human Behavior. 39 (4): 321–331. doi:10.1037/lhb0000115. ISSN 1573-661X.
• Holcomb, Matthew J.; Jacquin, Kristine M. (2007-07-03). "Juror Perceptions of Child Eyewitness Testimony in a Sexual Abuse Trial". Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 16(2): 79–95. doi:10.1300/J070v16n02_05. ISSN 1053-8712.
• Kassin, S. & Wrightsman, L. (1980). Prior confessions and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 133 146.
• Kassin, Saul M.; Drizin, Steven A.; Grisso, Thomas; Gudjonsson, Gisli H.; Leo, Richard A.; Redlich, Allison D. (2010). "Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations". Law and Human Behavior. 34 (1): 3–38. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6. ISSN 1573-661X.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F (1975-10). "Leading questions and the eyewitness report". Cognitive Psychology. 7 (4): 560–572. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90023-7.
• Neal, T.M.S., Slobogin, C. Saks, M.J., Faigman, D., & Geisinger, K. (2019). Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 135-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619888860
• Smalarz, Laura; Madon, Stephanie; Yang, Yueran; Guyll, Max; Buck, Sarah (2016). "The perfect match: Do criminal stereotypes bias forensic evidence analysis?". Law and Human Behavior. 40 (4): 420–429. doi:10.1037/lhb0000190. ISSN 1573-661X.
• Stern, W. (1939). "The psychology of testimony". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 34 (1): 3–20. doi:10.1037/h0054144. ISSN 0096-851X.
• Stewart, Destin N.; Jacquin, Kristine M. (2010-11-18). "Juror Perceptions in a Rape Trial: Examining the Complainant's Ingestion of Chemical Substances Prior to Sexual Assault". Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 19 (8): 853–874. doi:10.1080/10926771.2011.522951. ISSN 1092-6771.
• Viljoen, Jodi L.; Jonnson, Melissa R.; Cochrane, Dana M.; Vargen, Lee M.; Vincent, Gina M. (2019-10). "Impact of risk assessment instruments on rates of pretrial detention, postconviction placements, and release: A systematic review and meta-analysis". Law and Human Behavior. 43 (5): 397–420. doi:10.1037/lhb0000344. ISSN 1573-661X.

Afforestation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afforestation 

An afforestation project in Rand Wood, Lincolnshire, England

Afforestation is the establishment of a forest or stand of trees (forestation) in an area where there was no previous tree cover. Many government and non-governmental organizations directly engage in afforestation programs to create forests and increase carbon capture. Afforestation is an increasingly sought-after method to fight climate concerns, as it is known to increase the soil quality and organic carbon levels into the soil, avoiding desertification.

The rate of net forest loss decreased substantially over the period 1990–2020 due to a reduction in deforestation in some countries, plus increases in forest area in others through afforestation and the natural expansion of forests. A 2019 study of the global potential for tree restoration showed that there is space for at least 9 million km² of new forests worldwide, which is a 25% increase from current conditions. This forested area could store up to 205 gigatons of carbon or 25% of the atmosphere's current carbon pool by reducing CO₂ in the atmosphere and introducing more O₂.

Procedure

The process of afforestation begins with site selection. Several environmental factors of the site must be analyzed, including climate, soil, vegetation, and human activity. These factors will determine the quality of the site, what species of trees should be planted, and what planting method should be used.

After the forest site has been assessed, the area must be prepared for planting. Preparation can involve a variety of mechanical or chemical methods, such as chopping, mounding, bedding, herbicides, and prescribed burning. Once the site is prepared, planting can take place. One method for planting is direct seeding, which involves sowing seeds directly into the forest floor. Another is seedling planting, which is similar to direct seeding except that seedlings already have an established root system. Afforestation by cutting is an option for tree species that can reproduce asexually, where a piece of a tree stem, branch, root, or leaves can be planted onto the forest floor and sprout successfully. Sometimes special tools, such as a tree planting bar, are used to make planting of trees easier and faster.

Countries and regions

Australia

In Adelaide, South Australia (a city of 1.3 million as of June 2016), Premier Mike Rann (2002 to 2011) launched an urban forest initiative in 2003 to plant 3 million native trees and shrubs by 2014 on 300 project sites across the metro area. Thousands of Adelaide citizens have participated in community planting days on sites including parks, reserves, transport corridors, schools, water courses and coastline. Only native trees were planted to ensure genetic integrity. He said the project aimed to beautify and cool the city and make it more livable, improve air and water quality, and reduce Adelaide's greenhouse gas emissions by 600,000 tonnes of CO₂ a year.

Canada

In 2003, the government of Canada created a four-year project called the Forest 2020 Plantation Development and Assessment Initiative, which involved planting 6000 ha of fast-growing forests on non-forested lands countrywide. These plantations were used to analyze how afforestation can help to increase carbon sequestration and mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while also considering the economic and investment attractiveness of afforestation. The results of the initiative showed that although there is not enough available land in Canada to completely offset the country's GHG emissions, afforestation can be useful mitigation technique for meeting GHG emission goals, especially until permanent, more advanced carbon storage technology becomes available.

On December 14, 2020, Canada's Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O'Regan announced the federal government's investment of $3.16 billion to plant two billion trees over the next 10 years. This plan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 12 megatonnes by 2050.

China

Strips of forest are planted along hundreds of kilometers of the Yangtze levees in Hubei province

A law promulgated in 1981 requires that every school student over the age of 11 plants at least one tree per year. As a result, China has the highest afforestation rate of any country or region in the world, with 47,000 square kilometers of afforestation in 2008. However, the forest area per capita is still far lower than the international average. According to Carbon Brief, China planted the largest amount of new forest out of any country between 1990 and 2015, facilitated by the country's Grain for Green program started in 1999, by investing more than $100 billion in afforestation programs and planting more than 35 billion trees across 12 provinces. By 2015, the amount of planted forest in China covered 79 million hectares.

From 2011 to 2016, the city Dongying in Shandong province forested over 13,800 hectares of saline soil through the Shandong Ecological Afforestation Project, which was launched with support from the World Bank. In 2017, the Saihanba Afforestation Community won the UN Champions of the Earth Award in the Inspiration and Action category for "transforming degraded land into a lush paradise".

Europe

Afforestation on former colliery land near Cwm-Hwnt, Wales

Europe has deforested the majority of its historical forests. The European Union (EU) has paid farmers for afforestation since 1990, offering grants to turn farmland into forest and payments for the management of forest. An EU program, running between 2000 and 2006, afforested more than 1,000 square kilometres of land (precise statistics not yet available). Another such program began in 2007. Europe's forests are growing by 8,000 square kilometres a year thanks to these programmes.

According to Food and Agriculture Organization statistics, Spain had the third fastest afforestation rate in Europe in the 1990-2005 period, after Iceland and Ireland. In those years, a total of 44,360 square kilometers were afforested, and the total forest cover rose from 13.5 to 17.9 million hectares. In 1990, forests covered 26.6% of the Spanish territory. As of 2007, that figure had risen to 36.6%. Spain today has the fifth largest forest area in the European Union.

In January 2013, the UK government set a target of 12% woodland cover in England by 2060, up from the then 10%. In Wales the National Assembly for Wales has set a target of 19% woodland cover, up from 15%. Government-backed initiatives such as the Woodland Carbon Code are intended to support this objective by encouraging corporations and landowners to create new woodland to offset their carbon emissions. Charitable groups such as Trees for Life (Scotland) also contribute to afforestation and reforestation efforts in the UK.

India

See also: Forestry in India

 

Afforestation in South India

23% of India is covered by forest. In 2018, the total forest and tree cover in India increased to 24.39% or 8,020. 88 km². The forests of India are grouped into 5 major categories and 16 types based on biophysical criteria. 38% of the forest is categorized as subtropical dry deciduous and 30% as tropical moist deciduous and other smaller groups. Only local species are planted in an area. Trees bearing fruits are preferred wherever possible due to their function as a food source.

In 2019, Indians Planted 220 Million trees in a Single day in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.

On Thursday, 29 August 2019, Prime Minister of India Mr. Narendra Modi released ₹47, 436 crores (over 6.6 Billion USD) to various states for compulsory afforestation activities. The funds can be used for treatment of catchment areas, assisted natural generation, forest management, wildlife protection and management, relocation of villages from protected areas, managing human-wildlife conflicts, training and awareness generation, supply of wood saving devices and allied activities. Increasing the tree cover would help in creating additional carbon sink to meet the nation's Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030 - part of India's efforts to combat climate change. The Maharashtra government planted almost 20,000,000 saplings in the entire state, and will pledge to plant another 30,000,000 next year. According to The Telegraph, the Indian government has attributed $6.2 billion for tree-planting in order to increase “forestation in line with agreements made at the Paris climate change summit in 2015.” The Indian government has also passed the CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority) law, which will allow about 40 thousand crores rupees (almost $6 Billion) will go to Indian states for planting trees.

Iran

Fourth year of a genetically modified forest in Iran, planted by Aras GED through commercial afforestation

Iran is considered a low forest cover region of the world with present cover approximating seven percent of the land area. This is a value reduced to an estimated six million hectares of virgin forest, which includes oak, almond and pistachio. Due to soil substrates, it is difficult to achieve afforestation on a large scale compared to other temperate areas endowed with more fertile and less rocky and arid soil condition. According to the specific statistics of the Forests, Rangelands and Watershed Management Organization of Iran, every year, using appropriate methods and native tree species in each region, a lot of afforestation has been done, which has resulted in more natural stability.

Israel

JNF trees in the Negev Desert. Man-made dunes (here a liman) help keep in rainwater, creating an oasis.

 

Main article: Jewish National Fund § Afforestation

With over 240 million planted trees, Israel is one of only two countries that entered the 21st century with a net gain in the number of trees, due to massive afforestation efforts. Most Israeli forests are the product of a major afforestation campaign by the Jewish National Fund (JNF).

North Africa

Many African countries that border the Sahara desert are cooperating with the Great Green Wall project. The $8-billion project intends to restore 100 million hectares of degraded land by 2030. Also in North Africa, the Sahara Forest Project coupled with the Seawater greenhouse has been proposed. Some projects have also been launched in countries as Senegal to revert desertification. As of 2010, African leaders are discussing the combining of national resources to increase effectiveness. In addition, other projects as the Keita Project in Niger have been launched in the past, and have been able to locally revert damage done by desertification.

United States

Approximately one quarter of the United States is covered in non-protected forest. Nevertheless, areas in the US were subject to significant tree planting. In the 1800s people moving westward encountered the Great Plains – land with fertile soil, a growing population and a demand for timber but with few trees to supply it. So tree planting was encouraged along homesteads. Arbor Day was founded in 1872 by Julius Sterling Morton in Nebraska City, Nebraska. By the 1930s the Dust Bowl environmental disaster signified a reason for significant new tree cover. Public works programs under the New Deal saw the planting of 18,000 miles of windbreaks stretching from North Dakota to Texas to fight soil erosion (see Great Plains Shelterbelt).

Benefits

Afforestation boasts many climate-related benefits. Several new studies suggest that forests attract rain, which may explain why drought is occurring more frequently in certain parts of the world such as western Africa, where trees are more sparse. A 2017 study gives the first observational evidence that the southern Amazon rainforest triggers its own rainy season using water vapor from plant leaves, which then forms clouds above it. These findings help explain why deforestation in this region is linked with reduced rainfall. A 2009 study hypothesizes that forest cover plays a much greater role in determining rainfall than previously recognized. It explains how forested regions generate large-scale flows in atmospheric water vapor and further underscores the benefit of afforestation in currently barren regions of the world.

Afforestation helps to slow down global warming by reducing CO₂ in the atmosphere and introducing more O₂. Trees are carbon sinks that remove CO₂ from the atmosphere via photosynthesis and convert it into biomass.

Afforestation provides other environmental benefits, including increasing the soil quality and organic carbon levels in the soil, avoiding erosion and desertification. The planting of trees in urban areas is also able to reduce air pollution via the trees' absorption and filtration of pollutants, including carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and ozone, in addition to CO₂.

Criticism

Afforestation in grasslands

Tree-planting campaigns are criticised for sometimes targeting areas where forests would not naturally occur, such as grassland and savanna biomes.

Impact on biodiversity

Afforestation can negatively affect biodiversity through increasing fragmentation and edge effects for the habitat remaining outside the planted area. New forest plantations can introduce generalist predators that would otherwise not be found in open habitat into the covered area, which could detrimentally increase predation rates on the native species of the area. A study by scientists at the British Trust for Ornithology into the decline of British populations of Eurasian curlew found that afforestation had impacted curlew populations through fragmentation of their naturally open grassland habitats and increases in generalist predators.

Surface albedo

Questions have also been raised in the scientific community regarding how global afforestation could affect the surface albedo of Earth. The canopy cover of mature trees could make the surface albedo darker, which causes more heat to be absorbed, potentially raising the temperature of the planet. This is particularly relevant in parts of the world with high levels of snow cover, due to the more significant difference in albedo between highly reflective white snow and more darker forest cover which absorbs more solar radiation.