Expert Insights Series #3: Exploring Justice, Science, and Reform with Dr. Hank Fradella

Sep 18
8 min read

Peddie Psychology & Sociology Club | Special Feature reported by Alex Gao, March 2025

Dr. Hank Fradella is a distinguished scholar and educator whose work sits at the intersection of law, psychology, and criminal justice. As a professor at Arizona State University and Editor-in-Chief of the Criminal Law Bulletin, he has dedicated his career to exploring the complexities of mental illness in the legal system, the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the challenges of policing reform. With a background that includes practicing law, investigating homicides, and teaching at the university level, Dr. Fradella brings a unique perspective to his research and advocacy. His work not only advances academic understanding but also seeks to create meaningful change in the justice system.

The Path to Becoming a Criminal Justice Scholar

Q: Looking back at your time as a high schooler, could you have predicted this career path? Was there a case, moment, or mentor that made you realize the law wasn’t just about statutes but about broader human behavior?

Dr. Fradella: No, there was no predicting this. I took several paths to where I am. My grandfather was a lawyer, and I was the copy boy in his law office. After school, I took the subway to his law firm, made copies, threw out the trash, and that sort of soured the law in my mind. I didn’t expect when I got into the practice of law that I wouldn’t like it. In college, I developed a lot of respect for professors, which was inspiring, and I wanted to go down that path. It took me a while to figure out that I was actually interested in broader human behavior.

Q: Was being deeply invested in your career path a constant for you, or did you grow into it?

Dr. Fradella: It was not constant; I grew into it and changed. I started my career as an 8th-grade teacher, then worked as an undergraduate director of orientation, practiced law (didn’t like it), became a Washington, D.C. homicide investigator (a very difficult job), and it wasn’t until I went to graduate school to get my PhD that I settled on a career of college-level teaching.

The Fallibility of Science

Q: Is there a legal or forensic concept you wish you had understood earlier in your career—something that would have changed how you approach your work today? If yes, please describe it.

Dr. Fradella: Yes, I wish I had learned very early in my career that science is not infallible. Science is prone to error just like any other discipline. My belief in science as absolute truth came out of my high school and college-level science education. For example, when I was in high school, we had nine planets; now we have eight. Science is evolving. The more we learn, the more we change our views. When I was in high school, we thought ulcers were caused by high stress and spicy food, but now we know they’re caused by an infection and can be cured with antibiotics. If I had understood this earlier, it would have changed how I approached scientific evidence in courts of law. Science always correcting itself.

Common Misunderstandings and Pitfalls

Q: In your experience working across law and forensic psychology, have you encountered moments where legal professionals misunderstood psychological evidence, or vice versa? What are the most common pitfalls in bridging these fields?

Dr. Fradella: I’ve interacted with psychologists who confused insanity and serious mental illness. They’re not the same thing. Serious mental illness means a diagnosis that impairs cognitive and behavioral functioning, while insanity is a legal concept, not a psychiatric one. There are legal tests for insanity, such as questioning the perpetrator if they understood the legality and morality of their actions. Some people may have organic illness that interfere with their actions, and some people don’t understand that. Conversely, I’ve known attorneys and judges who assumed that if research is published, it must be true. Peer reviewers can miss things, and just because something is in print or on the internet doesn’t mean it’s true.

Finding Balance in a Demanding Career

Q: Can you tell us about your current research and what your day-to-day work looks like? How do you balance teaching, research, and your role as Editor-in-Chief of the Criminal Law Bulletin?

Dr. Fradella: Frankly, it’s dizzying some days because I’m pulled in many directions. Some mornings, I attend faculty meetings, then go to court to give expert testimony, and there’s no time for research or teaching. I had set aside this Friday for research and writing for the next issue of the Criminal Law Bulletin, but that can change if a doctoral student needs help with statistical analysis. Sometimes, my workday ends at 7:30 PM instead of 4:30 PM. It’s a balancing act, and I have to work weekends to catch up.

Q: Being invested in your work, when you have so many roles, despite your built-in love for what you do, do you think that a lot of high school students are worried about finding a passionate job? Do you have to turn to something else, or are you addicted to the busy feeling?

Dr. Fradella: I don’t think I’m addicted, but I derive professional satisfaction from teaching, helping the wrongfully accused, and advancing justice. I need breaks, though. I have hobbies like singing, playing cards, cooking, and traveling. I am involved in with my community theatre, local choruses, and sometimes I just to into a piano bar and ask if I can have the microphone for a set or two. Many friends and family come over during weekends and I would cook for all of them, and watching everybody enjoy the three course meal I provided brings me a lot of satisfaction. However, my ultimate passion would be traveling. In the summer, I travel as much as I can possibly afford. All of these activities help me recharge.

Has Society Outpaced Legal Reform?

Q: You’ve explored the intersection of mental illness and the justice system for years. From Mental Illness and Crime (2014) to your Criminal Justice Studies piece on mental health court data (2014), what’s the most underappreciated failure of the legal system in handling mentally ill defendants?

Dr. Fradella: The most underappreciated failure is the confusion between mens rea (criminal intent) and understanding criminality. Mens rea means “evil mind,” but you don’t need an evil mind to be guilty of a crime. The essential piece is the level of intent. YOu can certainly commmit a crime intentionally, but sometimes you do things negligently that you don't need to. For example, Michael Clark, a college student with paranoid schizophrenia, thought his town was under attack by aliens and killed a police officer. He acted purposefully (satisfying mens rea), but he didn’t understand what he was doing. This takes him outside of the realm of criminality. The legal system fails to disentangle the concepts of mental illness and criminal intent, leading to unjust outcomes.

Q: Society has a progressive culture. Would you say it’s extended to the law?

Dr. Fradella: Considering the current political situation and what had happened in Washington D.C., I would challenge the idea that we are in a progressive culture. I think your generation has more progressive thought, but the law hasn’t caught up. In the past, the law was more understanding of mental illness. For example, John Hinckley, who tried to assassinate President Reagan, was found not guilty by reason of insanity and spent 35 years in a psychiatric facility. Because the jurisdiction today has tightened up their insanity defense, someone like Michael Clark would be convicted and sent to prison because he possesses Mens rea, where they get no treatment. Jails and prisons are not appropriate for psychiatric care, and this is a horrific injustice. Our criminal legal system has become so punitive that it is now ensnaring a disproportionate number of mentally ill individuals. Roughly one out of every two people in prison has a mental health diagnosis, and in some metropolitan city jails, that number is as high as 81%. Secondly, jails and prisons are not appropriate substitute for psychiatric hospitals. Back in the 60s and 70s, psychiatric asylums treated people terribly and did not provide the help they needed. Thus, many asylums shut down and people returned to their communities to receive medication, therapy and support from their friends and family. However, many of these people did not receive appropriate treatment, lived on low budgets, and were often convicted of low-level quality-of-life crimes that sent them back to prisons. They are not criminals, and they don't belong there. They need treatment but there is no funding.

Why Courts Still Get It Wrong

Q: Your work on eyewitness misidentifications has been cited in appellate and Supreme Court decisions. What’s the most frustrating misconception courts still have about eyewitness testimony and other forms of expert testimony, despite decades of empirical research?

Dr. Fradella: The most frustrating misconception is that eyewitness testimony is reliable. These testimonies can be wrong about 50%-75% of the time. Cross-racial identifications are particularly problematic, as people are bad at recognizing faces of different races. During crime situations, witnesses are often more focused on their own safety rather than the appearance of the criminal, and this stress can distort memory. Trials often happen months or years after the event, and memories degrade over time. The human brain starts filling in missing details, which leads to inaccurate testimonies. Despite this, courts still rely heavily on eyewitness testimony, leading to wrongful convictions.

Q: What would be your ideal way of approaching this issue? Remove eyewitness testimony? Keep it away from the jury?

Dr. Fradella: No, I don’t think we should bar eyewitness testimony entirely. Instead, we should ensure police follow proper procedures when gathering evidence (e.g., avoiding bias). If they do, eyewitness testimony should be allowed, but court-appointed psychologists should explain the complexities of human memory (cross-racial examination, the presence of weapons) to jurors. If police taint the process, the testimony should be excluded.

The Challenges of Policy Reform

Q: Your research has influenced police policies, particularly regarding stop-and-frisk. Despite the strong evidence and practical reforms you propose, how much impact do experts like yourself have on tangible policy change? Do police departments engage with this research, or does political inertia stall reform? Also, can you briefly explain your work on stop-and-frisk and how you've addressed its legal and practical challenges?

Dr. Fradella: Stop-and-frisk is a tactic where police stop someone they suspect of criminal activity and pat them down if they believe the person is armed. Over time, it became racially biased, damaging trust in communities of color. Racial differences in stops disappear after dark when officers can’t see the driver’s race, proving bias exists. My work aims to return stop-and-frisk to its original purpose: stopping crime based on specific suspicion, not race. Reform is slow because of political inertia and resistance from police unions. Many reform-minded officers will attempt to initiate change, but they possess minimal power in a system that works against them.