Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk.

The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases

“…This previous research has shown clinical testimony to be more persuasive than actuarial testimony, despite the overall inferiority of clinical testimony in predicting violence (Borum, 1996;Gardner et al, 1996;Mossman, 1994;Quinsey et al, 1998). According to cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST), this pattern of results may be due to the relative influence of experiential over rational information processing.…”

“…ignoring the base rate, assigning a non-optimal weight to this factor, and utilizing the representativeness heuristic) in arriving at a conclusion that the defendant will be dangerous in the future. As a result of these errors, for the long-term predictions of dangerousness required by the Texas death penalty statute as well as most jurisdictions' sexually violent predator laws, clinical predictions have been demonstrated to be uniformly inferior to other means of violence prediction (see, e.g., Borum, 1996;Gardner, Lidz, Mulvey, & Shaw, 1996;Mossman, 1994;Quinsey et al, 1998).…”

“…In particular, errors associated with assigning non-optimal weights to factors and combining factors in a manner that is subjectively appealing rather than empirically derived represent significant problems for this method of assessment. This and other problems have led some scholars to suggest that guided clinical judgments are unlikely to be the equals of well validated actuarial predictions of dangerousness (Quinsey et al, 1998).…”

“…Critics within the legal and psychological fields have questioned the ethics (Faust & Ziskin, 1988;Lavin & Sales, 1998), the validity (Cunningham & Reidy, 1999, 2002Edens, Petrila, & Buffington-Vollum, 2001), and the biasing effects that these potentially unreliable expert predictions might have on jury decisions (Guy & Edens, 2003;Krauss & Lee, 2003;Krauss & Sales, 2001). Although considerable advances have been made in the area of dangerousness prediction or risk assessment validity (see, e.g., Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998;Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997), there still remains considerable doubt whether these new procedures are being used in actual practice (see, e.g., Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997). Moreover, the court's assumptions in Barefoot that jury members and adversary procedures will be adequate to undo any bias caused by less scientific expert opinions has not been borne out by the limited research that has investigated these issues (e.g.…”

Sexually Violent Predator Evaluations: Empirical Evidence, Strategies for Professionals, and Research Directions.

“…Research has indicated significant differences between types of sexual offenders, including rates of recidivism (e.g., Doren & Epperson, 2001;Furby, Weinrott, & Blackshaw, 1989;Hanson & Bussiere, 1998;Rice & Harris, 1997). For example, incest offenders recidivate at lower rates than extrafamilial child molesters who target victims of the opposite sex (Quinsey et al, 1998) who, in turn, recidivate at lower rates than extrafamilial child molesters who target victims of the same sex (Hanson, Steffy, & Guthiere, 1993). Thus, lumping sexual offenders into one group to examine the utility of risk assessment measures may significantly affect the findings of studies that have done so.…”