Content area
Full text
Abstract
Investigation and intervention in forensic art therapy are distinct and separate entities that are predicated upon specified goals and objectives. The predilection to integrate these two entities can serve to foster misunderstanding, fusion of ideology, and a lack of role division. Descriptions for and explanations of Forensic Art Therapy (FAT), an investigative technique (Cohen-Liebman, 1997, 1999, 2001) and art therapy as intervention in Forensic Settings (FS) (Gussak, & Virshup, 1997; Liebmann, 1994), will be reviewed. Distinctions relevant to treatment, treatment goals, and the role of the art therapist in each circumstance are examined.
Investigation vs. Intervention
Forensic Art Therapy (FAT) and art therapy in Forensic Settings (FS) may appear to be similar in treatment and scope, however, they are distinct entities. FAT is an investigative technique while FS is a model for therapeutic intervention. We will present the distinctions and similarities associated with both methods of treatment and consider the populations addressed, the role of the art therapist, and the goals associated with each intervention. Definitions for FAT and FS will be provided. The advantages of art therapy in each domain will be identified.
The Beginning
FAT is nontraditional art therapy, extending its application beyond evaluation and treatment. Art therapy in forensic settings (FS) subscribes to a relatively conventional art therapy approach with modifications.
Prior to presenting a pre-conference course entitled, "Forensic Art Therapy" at the 1997 American Art Therapy Association conference, Cohen-Liebman contacted Gussak to discuss the content of her course. Aware that Drawing time: Art therapy in prisons and other correctional setting, (Gussak & Virshup, 1997) was slated for imminent publication, Cohen-Liebman sought to confirm her conviction that FAT was a distinct and separate entity. Ursprung, Gussak, and Wisker's open forum presentation at the 1997 national conference, "Forensic Art Therapy" (1997), also provided substantive support of FAT as a distinct method of practice from FS. The dialogue that was spawned contributed to a conjoint presentation at the AATA conference the following year (Cohen-- Liebman & Gussak, 1998). They identified and classified criteria associated with FAT and FS and outlined differences between the two.
The New World Dictionary (Guralnik, 1980) defines forensic as "characteristic of, or suitable for a law court, public debate, or formal argumentation" (p. 546). In the Dictionary...