Using a Model to Guide Data Gathering, Interpretation, and Communication in Capital Mitigation Evaluations

Marczyk, Geoffrey; Heilbrun, Kirk; DeMatteo, David; Bell, Brett

doi:10.1300/j158v03n03_06

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No specific or consistent guidelines for mitigation evaluations currently exist among capital defense attorneys or mental health professionals who conduct mitigation evaluations (Cunningham & Reidy, 2001;Liebert & Foster, 1994;Marczyk, Heilbrun, DeMatteo, & Bell, 2003). The lack of a clearly defined purpose and scope for mitigation evaluations and for the role of mental health experts within this context may be due to a variety of factors.…”

Section: Purpose and Scope Of Mitigation Evaluations By Mental Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mitigation Evaluations: A Survey of Current Practices

Barnett

Brodsky

Neal

2011

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the scope and components of mitigation assessments in a first effort to develop some guidelines for conducting mitigation evaluations. Using the Mitigation Evaluations Survey (MES) we developed for this research, we surveyed 266 psychologists about the characteristics and content of mitigation evaluations. A high percentage of participants endorsed each of the 14 content areas presented in the MES as essential or recommended for inclusion in mitigation evaluations. However, when the participants were given a hypothetical open-ended referral question regarding a mitigation evaluation, fewer participants included all 14 content areas in their responses. This discrepancy as well as information regarding the qualifications and expertise of the participants is discussed. Mitigation Evaluations 3 Mitigation Evaluations: A Survey of Current PracticesMitigation evaluations occupy a unique position within psycholegal topics for several reasons. First, mitigation occurs solely in the sentencing phase of capital murder trials. Capital trials are divided into two separate parts: the guilt-determining phase, and if necessary, the sentencing phase. It is this sentencing phase that sets capital trials apart from other types of criminal and civil litigation, and within this sentencing phase mitigation testimony may become crucial. During the sentencing phase, the jury hears both aggravating and mitigating evidence regarding the case and the defendant, weighs that evidence, and recommends a sentence (Acker & Lanier, 1994).A second unique element of mitigation work is that it involves a process that carries life or death implications. Jurors who hear the mitigating and aggravating arguments in the sentencing phase of capital trials must rely on that information to arrive at the life-or-death decision they are charged with making. Other psycholegal work psychologists perform (e.g., competency to stand trial, mental state, criminal responsibility) is not directly linked to potential death outcome options.An additional unique element of mitigation work is the role mental health professionals (MHPs) assume. Decisions regarding the investigation of the case and defendant for potential mitigating circumstances, the selection of mitigation evidence to be presented, and the specific content and depth to which the mitigating factors and circumstances are introduced are

show abstract

Section: Purpose and Scope Of Mitigation Evaluations By Mental Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the rationale provided in the introduction, the study provides several additional reasons why it might be beneficial to establish a set of guidelines for mitigation (Cunningham & Reidy, 2001;Marczyk et al, 2003).…”

Section: Towards Guidelines For Conducting Mitigation Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%