Evaluating science outside the trial box: Applying Daubert to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines' criminal history score

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 289-305

  Krauss, Daniel A ^a  

^a CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Criminal history; Evidentiary admissibility; Federal sentencing; Recidivism; Sentencing guidelines

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COURT; CRIMINAL LAW; HUMAN RIGHTS; LAW ENFORCEMENT; PRISON; PUNISHMENT; RECIDIVISM; SOCIOLOGY;

CRIME; CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY; EXPERT TESTIMONY; GUIDELINES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; PRISONERS; RECURRENCE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33745713422     PISSN: 01602527     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.08.009     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Becker J., and Murphy W. The science of sex offenders: Risk assessment, treatment, and prevention: What we know and do not know about assessing and treating sex offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 4 (1998) 116-140
2. Beecher-Monas E. The epistemology of prediction: Future dangerousness testimony and intellectual due process. Washington and Lee Law Review 60 (2003) 353-390
3. Blumstein A. Criminal careers and "career criminals", vol. I and II (1986), National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
4. Breyer S. The federal sentencing guidelines and the key compromises upon which they rest. Hofstra Law Review 1 (1988) 17-34
5. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 507 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
6. Ewing v. California, 123 S.Ct. 1179 (2003).
7. Finkel N. Not fair! The typology of commonsense unfairness (2001), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
8. Frankel J. Lawlessness in sentencing. University of Cincinnati Law Review 41 (1972) 1-61
9. Frye v. United States, 292 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
10. Gatowski S., Dobbins S., Richardson J., Gisnburg G., Merlino M., and Dahir V. Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges of judging expert evidence in the post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior 25 (2001) 433-458
11. General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512 (1997).
12. Goodman-Delahunty R. Forensic psychological expertise in the wake of Daubert. Law and Human Behavior 21 (1997) 121-140
13. Groscup J., Penrod S., Studebaker C., Huss M., and O'Neil K. The effects of Daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8 (2003) 339-372
14. Grove W., Barden C., Garb H., and Lilienfeld S. Failure of the Rorschach-comprehensive-system-based testimony to be admissible under the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho standard. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8 (2002) 216-235
15. Hamilton H.G. Note: The movement from Frye to Daubert: Where do the states stand?. Jurimetrics Journal 38 (1998) 201-210
16. Hanley J., and McNeil B. The meaning and use of the area under a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143 (1982) 29-36
17. Hanley J., and McNeil B. A method of comparing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves derived from same cases. Radiology 14 (1983) 839-843
18. Harer, M. (1994) Recidivism among federal prisoners releases in 1987: A preliminary report. Federal Bureau of Prisons. Unpublished Report.
19. Hofer P., and Allenbaugh J. The reason behind the rules: Finding and using the philosophy of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. American Criminal Law Review 40 (2003) 20-85
20. Hoffman P. Screening for risk: A revised salient factor score (SFS 81). Journal of Criminal Justice 2 (1983) 195-206
21. Hoffman P. Twenty years of operational use of a prediction instrument: The United States Parole Commission's salient factor score. Journal of Criminal Justice 22 (1994) 477-494
22. Hoffman P., and Beck J. Parole decision-making: A salient factor score. Journal of Criminal Justice 2 (1974) 195-206
23. Hoffman P., and Beck J. Salient factor score validation-A 1972 cohort. Journal of Criminal Justice 4 (1976) 69-76
24. Hoffman P., and Beck J. Revalidating the salient factor score: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice 8 (1980) 185-188
25. Hoffman P., and Beck J. Recidivism among released federal prisoner: Salient factor score and five year follow up. Criminal Justice and Behavior 12 (1985) 501-507
26. Hoffman P., and Beck J. The origins of the federal criminal history score. Federal Sentencing Reporter 9 (1997) 192-197
27. Hoffman P., Stone-Meierhoefer B., and Beck J. Salient factor score and release behavior: Three validation samples. Law and Human Behavior 2 (1978) 47-63
28. Janus M. Selective incapacitation: Have we tried it? Does it work?. Journal of Criminal Justice 13 (1985) 117-129
29. Kovera M., and McAuliff B. The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers?. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (2000) 574-586
30. Kovera M., Russano M., and McAuliff B. Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert: Legal decisions maker's abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8 (2002) 180-201
31. Krauss D. Adjusting risk of recidivism: Do judicial departures worsen or improve recidivism prediction under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 6 (2004) 731-750
32. Krauss, D., & Goldstein (in press). Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the role of forensic experts. In A. Goldstein (Ed.), Forensic psychology: Advanced topics for forensic mental experts and attorneys. John Wiley and Sons.
33. Krauss D., and Lee. Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors' ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 26 (2003) 113-137
34. Krauss D., and Sales B.D. The problem of helpfulness in applying Daubert to expert testimony: Child custody determination in family law as an exemplar. Special issue: Daubert and social science research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 5 (1999) 78-100
35. Krauss D., and Sales B.D. Legal standards, expertise, and experts in the resolution of contested child custody cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6 (2000) 843-879
36. Krauss D., and Sales B.D. The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision-making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 7 (2001) 267-310
37. Kumho v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).
38. Langan v. United States, 263 F.3d 613 (So. Dist. Ohio, 2001).
39. Monahan J., Steadman H., Silver E., Appelbaum P., Robbins P., Mulvey E., et al. Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorders and violence (2001), Oxford University Press, New York
40. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 109 S.CT. 647 (1989).
41. Moore v. Ashland Chemicals Inc., 151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998).
42. National Center for State Courts. Truth-in-sentencing in Virginia: Evaluating the process and impact of sentencing reform (1999), National Center for State Courts, Virginia
43. Nenno v. State, 970 SW.2d 544 (Tx Crim. App. 1998).
44. Patridge A., and Eldridge W. The second circuit sentencing study: A report to judges (1974), Federal Judicial Center
45. Qunisey V., Harris G., Rice M., and Cormier C. Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk (1998), American Psychological Association, Washington D.C.
46. Rappaport A. Rationalizing the commission: The philosophical premises of the U.S. sentencing guidelines. Emory law review (2003)
47. Rice M. Violent offender research implications for the criminal justice system. American Psychologist 52 (1997) 414-423
48. Rice M., and Harris G. Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63 (1995) 737-748
49. Robert J. The role of criminal record in the Federal Sentencing Guideline. Criminal Justice Ethics 4 (1994) 21-30
50. Schmidt, A., & Garner, J. (1990). Recidivism of incarcerated federal offenders, 1978-1993. Preliminary report. United States Sentencing Commission. Unpublished report.
51. Schopp R. Competency, condemnation, and commitment: An integrated theory of mental health law (2001), American Psychological Association, Washington D.C.
52. Schopp R., Scalora M., and Pearce M. Expert testimony and professional judgement: Psychological expertise and commitment as a sexual predator after Hendricks. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 5 (1999) 120-175
53. Shuman D., and Sales B. The impact of Daubert and its progeny on the admissibility of behavioral and social science evidence. Psychology, Public Policy and Law 5 (1999) 3-16
54. Sjosted G., and Grann M. Risk assessment: What is being predicted by actuarial instruments?. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 1 (2002) 179-193
55. Slobogin C. Doubts about Daubert: Psychiatric anecdota as a case study. Washington and Lee Law Review 57 (2000) 918-950
56. Tyler T. Governing amid diversity: The effect of fair decision-making procedures on the legitimacy of government. Law and Society Review 28 (1994) 827-852
57. United States Sentencing Commission. Federal Sentencing Guidelines manual. Westlaw (1987)
58. United States Sentencing Commission. Supplementary report on the initial sentencing guidelines and policy statements (1987)
59. United States Sentencing Commission. 1992 sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics (1992)
60. United States Sentencing Commission. 1995 sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics (1995)
61. United States Sentencing Commission. 2001 sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics (2001)
62. United States Sentencing Commission. Fifteen years of guidelines sentencing: An assessment of how well the federal criminal justice system is achieving the goals of sentencing reform (2004). http://www.ussc.gov/15_year/15year.htm Available at http://www.ussc.gov/15_year/15year.htm
63. United States Sentencing Commission. Measuring recidivism: The criminal history computation of the Federal sentencing guidelines (2004). http://www.ussc.gov/publicat/Recidivism_General.pdf Available at http://www.ussc.gov/publicat/Recidivism_General.pdf
64. Vincent B. So what's the purpose?. Federal Sentencing Reporter 9 (1997) 189-201
65. U.S. v. Plaza, WL389163 (E.D. PA 2002).
66. United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005).
67. United States v. Fanfan, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005).
68. Wagner W. The science charade in toxic risk regulation. Columbia Law Review 95 (1995) 1613-1667