Limited expertise and experts: Problems with the continued use of future dangerousness in capital sentencing

Mental Disorder and Criminal Law: Responsibility, Punishment and Competence

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 135-157

  Krauss, Daniel A ^a   McCabe, John G ^a   McFadden, Sarah ^a  

^a CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 72449131413     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-84845-7_6     Document Type: Chapter

References (69)

1. American Psychological Association, (2005). Brief of amicus curiae in United States v. Fields. Case No. 04-50393 (5th circuit).
2. American Psychological Association, (1983). Brief of amicus curiae in Barefoot v. Estelle. Case No. 82-6080 (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals).
3. Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (1995). LSI-R: The level of service inventory-revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
4. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
5. Babcock, S. (2006). Death row conditions. Death Penalty Information Center. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1397. last visited 9/26/07.
6. Barefoot v. Estelle, No. 82-6080, 463 U.S.880 (S.Ct. 1983).
7. Beecher-Monas, E. (2003). The epistemology of prediction: Future dangerousness testimony and intellectual due process. Washington and Lee Law Review, 60(2), 353-416.
8. Bernstein, D., & Jackson, H. (2004). The Daubert trilogy in the states. Jurimetrics, 44, 1-16.
9. Blume, J., Garvey, S., & Johnson, S. (2001). Future dangerousness in capital cases: Always "At Issue". Cornell Law Review, 86, 397-410.
10. Bowers, W. J. & Steiner, B. D. (1999). Death by default: An empirical demonstration of false and forced choices in capital sentencing. Texas Law Review, 43, 605-717.
11. Costanzo, S., & Constanzo, M. (1994). Life or death decisions: An analysis of capital jury decision making under the special issues sentencing framework. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 151-170.
12. Cunningham, M. D. (2006). Dangerousness and death: A nexus in search of science and reason. American Psychologist, 61, 828-839.
13. Cunningham, M. D., & Reidy, T. J. (1998). Integrating base rate data in violence risk assessment at capital sentencing. Behavioral Science and the Law, 16, 71-83.
14. Cunningham, M.D., Sorensen, J.R., & Reidy, T.J. (2005). An actuarial model for assessment of prison violence risk among maximum security inmates. Assessment, 12, 40-49.
15. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (S.Ct.1993).
16. Death Penalty Information Center (2007). Facts about the death penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org. last visited 9/21/07.
17. Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819-829.
18. DeMatteo, D., & Edens, J.F. (2006). The role and relevance of the psychopathy checklist revised in court: A case law survey of U.S. courts (1991-2004). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12(2), 214-241.
19. Donovan, S., & Epstein, S. (1997) The difficulty of the Linda conjunction problem can be attributed to its simultaneous concrete and unnatural representation, and not to conversational implicature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 1-20.
20. Dorland, M. (2004). Aggravating circumstances in Oklahoma: Executed offenders. Unpublished manuscript, Claremont, CA: Claremont McKenna College.
21. Dorland, M., & Krauss, D. (2005). The danger of dangerousness in capital sentencing: Exacerbating the problem of arbitrary and capricious decision-making. Law and Psychology Review, 29, 63-104.
22. Douglas, K., Ogloff, J., Nicholls, T., & Grant, I. (1999). Assessing risk for violence among psychiatric patients: The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme and the Psychopathic Checklist: Screening Version. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 917-930.
23. Douglas, K., & Webster, C. (1999). The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: Concurrent validity in a sample of incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 3-19.
24. Edens, J., Buffington-Vollum, J., Keilin, A., Roskamp, P., & Anthony, C. (2005). Predictions of future dangerousness in capital murder trials: is it time to "disinvent the wheel?" Law and Human Behavior, 29, 55-87.
25. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
26. Epstein, S., & Pacini, R. (1999). Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.) Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 462-483). New York: The Guilford Press.
27. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitiveexperiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390-405.
28. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
29. Gardner, W., Lidz, C., Mulvey, E., & Shaw, E. (1996). Clinical versus actuarial predictions of violence in patients with mental illness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 602-609.
30. General Electric v. Joiner 522 U.S. 136 (S.Ct. 1996).
31. Grove, W., & Meehl, P. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 2, 293-323.
32. Guy, L., & Edens, J. (2003). Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: Gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony. Behavioral Science and the Law, 21, 215-237.
33. Hart, S.D., Michie, C., & Cook, D.J. (2007). Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: Evaluating the "margins of error" of group v. individual predictions of violence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190, 60-65.
34. Harris, G.T., & Rice, M.E. (2007). Characterizing the value of actuarial violence risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior.
35. Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. (2002). Prospective replication of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide in predicting violent recidivism among forensic patients. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 377-394.
36. Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976).
37. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 S.Ct. 2072 (1997).
38. Kansas v. Crane 534 U.S. 407 (S.Ct. 2002).
39. Krauss, D. (2004). Adjusting risk of recidivism: Do judicial departures worsen or improve recidivism prediction under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6, 731-750.
40. Krauss, D., Cassar, D., & Strother, A. (in press). The admissibility of expert testimony in the United States, the commonwealth and elsewhere. In D. Krauss, & J. Lieberman (Vol. Eds.), Expert testimony: Vol. II. A two volume edited work in the series: Psychology, Crime, & Law (D. caner series Ed.) Aldershot: Ashgate.
41. Krauss, D., & Lee, D. (2003). Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors' ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26, 113-137.
42. Krauss, D., & Lieberman, J. (2007). Expert testimony on risk and future dangerousness. In M. Costanzo, D. Krauss & K. Pezdek, (Eds.), Expert testimony for the courts (pp. 227-250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. Krauss, D. A., Lieberman J. D., & Olson, J. (2004). The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 801-822.
44. Krauss, D., & Sales, B. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision-making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 267-310.
45. Kumho Tire v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (S.Ct.1999).
46. Lieberman, J., Krauss, D., Kyger, M., & Lehoux, M. (2007). Determining dangerousness in Sexually Violent Predator evaluations: Cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 507-526.
47. Marquart, J., Ekland-Olson, S., & Sorensen J. (1989). Gazing into the crystal ball: Can jurors actually predict dangerousness in capital cases? Law & Society Review, 23, 449-468.
48. McKee, S. A., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2007). Improving forensic tribunal decisions: The role of the clinician. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 485-506.
49. McNeil, D., Sanders, D., & Binder, R. (1998). The relationship between confidence and accuracy in clinical predictions of psychiatric patients' potential for violence. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 655-671.
50. Monahan, J. (1981). The clinical prediction of violent behavior. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
51. Monahan, J. (2003). Violence risk assessment. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) & A. Goldstein (Vol. Ed.), The handbook of psychology: Vol. 11. forensic psychology (pp. 527-542). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
52. Monahan, J., Steadman, H., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P., Robbins, P., Mulvey, E., Roth, L., Grisso, T., & Banks, S. (2001). Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorders and violence. New York: Oxford University Press.
53. Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical, 62, 783-792.
54. Nenno v. State, 970 SW.2d 544 (Tx Crim. App. 1998).
55. O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (S.Ct. 1975).
56. Panetti v. Quarterman, U.S. LEXIS 8667 (2007).
57. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).
58. Reidy, T. J., Cunningham, M. D., & Sorenson, J. (2001). From death to life: Prison behavior of former death row inmates in Indiana. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 62-83.
59. Rice, M., & Harris, G. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737-748.
60. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
61. Sales, B., & Shuman, D. (2007). Science, experts, and law: Reflections on the past and future. In M. Costanzo, Krauss, D., & K. Pezdek (Eds.) Expert testimony for the courts (pp. 9-31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
62. Slobogin, C. (2007). Proving the unprovable. American Psychology-Law Society Society Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63. Sorenson, J. R., & Marquart, J. W. (1991). Prosecutorial and jury decision-making in post-Furman Texas capital cases. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 18, 743-776.
64. Sorensen, J.R., Pilgrim, R.L. (2001). An actuarial risk assessment of violence posed by capital murder defendants. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 90, 1251-1270.
65. Texas Criminal Code, Article 37.071, 2(b)(1) (2004).
66. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgments of and by representativeness. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 84-100). New York: Cambridge University Press.
67. United States v. Fields No 04-50393 483 F.3d 313 (5th Circuit).
68. Vidmar, N., Lempert, R., Diamond, S., Hans, V., Landsman, S., MacCoun, R. et al. (2000). Amicus Brief: Kumho Tire v. Carmichael. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 387-400.
69. Webster, C., Douglas, K., Eaves, D., & Hart, S. (1997). HCR-20: Assessing risk for violence. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser University, Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute.