A modern day witch hunt: The troubling role of psychologists in sexual predator laws

American Journal of Forensic Psychology

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 23-49

  Good, Paul ^a,b   Burstein, Jules ^a,b  

^a Wright Institute ^*

^b WRIGHT INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS; FEMALE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MALE; MENTAL DISEASE; PSYCHOLOGIST; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SEXUAL CRIME;

EID: 78649436706     PISSN: 07331290     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (82)

1. Hoffer P: The Devil's Disciples: Makers of the Salem Witchcraft Trials. Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996
2. Halon R: The demise of psychology in SVP commitment trials: smoke and mirrors. Presentation at 22nd Annual Symposium of the American College of Forensic Psychology, San Francisco, CA, 2006
3. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Ed., Text Revision). Washington, DC, Author, 2000
4. Prentky R, Coward A, Gabriel A: Muddy diagnostic waters in the SVP courtroom. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 2008; 36:4:455-458
5. O'Donohue W, Geer J (eds.): Handbook of the Assessment and Treatment of the Sexual Dysfunctions. New York, Allyn and Bacon, 1993
6. Frances A, Sreenivasan S, Weinberger L: Defining mental disorder when it really counts: DSM-IV-TR and SVP/SDP statutes. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 2008; 36:3:375-384
7. First M, Frances A: Issues for DSM-V: unintended consequences of small changes: the case of paraphilias. American Journal of Psychiatry 2008; 165:10
8. In re Davenport, No. 99-2-50349-2 (December 11, 2006) Deposition of M. First
9. Zander T: Civil commitment without psychosis: the law's reliance on the weakest links in psychodiagnosis. Journal of Sexual Offender Civil Commitment: Science and the Law 2005; I:17-82
10. Abel G: Paraphilias, in Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. Edited by Kaplan H, Sadock B. Baltimore, MD, Williams and Wilkins, 1989
11. Zander T: Commentary: inventing diagnosis for civil commitment of rapists. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 2008; 36:4:459-469
12. Doren DM: Evaluating Sex Offenders: A Manual for Civil Commitments and Beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 2002
13. O'Donohue W, Regev LG, Hagstrom A: Problems with the DSM-IV diagnosis of pedophilia. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 2000; 12:95-105
14. First M, Halon R: Use of DSM paraphilia diagnoses in sexually violent predator commitment cases. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 2008; 36:443-454
15. Moser C, Kleinplatz PJ: DSM-IV-TR and the paraphilias: an argument for removal. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 2005; 17:3/4:91-109
16. Quinsey V, Harris G, Rice M, Cormier C: Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, 1998
17. Hanson K: The Development of a Brief Actuarial Risk Scale for Sexual Offense Recidivism. (User Report 97-04) Ottawa, Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, 1997
18. Epperson D, Kaul J, Huot S, Goldman R, Alexander W: Minnesota sex offender screening tool-revised (MnSOST-R): development, validation, and recommended risk level cut scores, 2003 http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/ faculty/epperson/TechUpdatePaper12-03.pdf
19. Hanson R, Thornton D: Static 99: Improving Actuarial Risk Assessments for Sex Offenders (User Report No.99- 02) Ottawa, Department of the Solicitor General Canada, 1999; Notes on the development of the Static 2002 (User Report No. 2003-01) Ottawa, Department of the Solicitor General Canada, 2003.
20. Prentky R, Lee A: Effect of age-at-release on long term sexual re-offense rates in civilly committed sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 2007; 19:1:43-59
21. Miller H, Amenta A, Conroy M: Sexually violent predator evaluations: empirical evidence, strategies for professional, and research directions. Law and Human Behavior 2005; 29:29-54
22. Campbell T: Assessing Sex Offenders: Problems and Pitfalls. Springfield, Illinois, Charles Thomas, 2004
23. Rogers R: The uncritical acceptance of risk acceptance in forensic practice. Law and Human Behavior 2000; 24:595-605
24. Hanson K: What do we know about sex offender risk assessment? Psychology, Public Policy and Law 1998; 4:1/2:50-72
25. Hanson K, Bussiere M: Predicting relapse: a meta-analysis of sex offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1998; 66:348-362
26. Hanson K, Morton-Bourgon K: Prediction of Sexual Recidivism: An Updated Meta-analysis (Report No. 2004-02). Ottawa, Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada, 2004
27. Donaldson T: Accuracy of predictive instruments. Presentation at the SVP Defense Practice Seminar, April 21, 2001
28. Hanson K, Morton-Bourgon K: The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment 2009; 21:1:1-21
29. Murrie D, Boccaccini M, Johnson J, Janke C: Does interrater (dis)agreement on Psychopathy Checklist scores in sexually violent predator trials suggest partisan allegiance in forensic evaluations? Law and Human Behavior 2008; 32:352-362
30. Vrieze S, Grove W: Predicting sex offender recidivism. I. Correcting for item-overselection and accuracy overestimation in scale development. II. Sampling error-induced attenuation of predictive validity over base rate information. Law and Human Behavior 2008; 32:3:266-278
31. Donaldson T: Prediction instrument accuracy: or everything you wanted to know about ROC curves. Unpublished manuscript, 2003
32. Amenta A, Guy L, Edens J: Sex offender risk assessment: a cautionary note regarding measures attempting to quantify violence risk. J of Forensic Psychology 2003; 3:39-50
33. Berlin F, Galbreath N, Geary B, McGlone G: The use of actuarials at civil commitment hearings to predict the likelihood of future sexual violence. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 2003; 15:377-382
34. Sjostedt G, Grann M: Risk assessment: what is being predicted by actuarial instruments? International J. of Forensic Mental Health 2002; 1:179-183
35. Barbaree H: Evaluating treatment efficacy with sexual offenders: the insensitivity of recidivism studies to treatment effects. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 1997; 9:11-128
36. Helmus L, Hanson K, Thornton D: Reporting Static-99 in light of new research on recidivism norms. ATSA Forum 2009; 21:1:Winter
37. Abracen J, Looman J: Evaluation of civil commitment criteria in a high risk sample of sexual offenders. Journal of Sexual Offender Civil Commitment: Science and the Law 2006; 1:124-140.
38. Grisso T: Ethical issues in evaluations for sex offender re-offending. Paper presented at the Symposium on Sex Offender Re-Offense Risk Prediction, Sinclair Seminars, Madison, Wisconsin, 2000
39. Koehler J: The base rate fallacy reconsidered: descriptive, normative and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Science 1996; 19:1-53
40. Abbott B: Applicability of the new Static-99 experience tables in sexually violent predator risk assessments. Sex Offender Treatment 2009; 4:1
41. Prentky R, Janus E, Barbaree H, Schwartz B, Kafka M: Sexually violent predators in the courtroom: science on trial. William Mitchell College of Law: Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 50, 2006 http.//ssrn.com/abstract=937010
42. Wollert R: Low base rates limit expert certainty when current actuarials are used to identify sexually violent predators: an application of Bayes's theorem. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2006; 12:1:56-85
43. Waggoner R, Wollert R, Cramer E: A respecification of Hanson's updated Static-99 experience table that controls for the effects of age on sexual recidivism among young offenders. Law, Probability and Risk 2008; 7:305-312
44. Abbott B: The role of local base rate information in determining accuracy of sexual recidivism actuarial instruments. Perspectives 2008; Fall:1, 11, 12
45. Mossman D: Analyzing the performance of risk assessment instruments: a response to Vrieze and Grove (2007). Law and Human Behavior 2008; 32:279-291
46. Bengston S, Langstrom N: Unguided clinical and actuarial assessment of re-offending risk: a direct comparison with sex offenders in Denmark. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 2007; 19:135-153
47. Janus E, Prentky R: Forensic use of actuarial risk assessment with sex offenders: accuracy, admissibility and accountability. American Criminal Law and Review 2003; 40:1443-1499 (Pubitemid 38640093)
48. Heilbrun K, Douglas K, Yasuhara K: Violence risk assessment: core controversies, in Psychological Science in the Courtroom: Consensus and Controversy. Edited by Skeem J, Douglas K, Lilienfeld S. New York, Guilford Press, 2009
49. Hart S, Michie C, Ciijem D: The precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: evaluating the "margins of error" of group versus individual predictions of violence. British Journal of Psychiatry 2007; 190:S60-S65
50. Litwack T: Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law 2001; 7:409-443
51. Sjostedt G, Langstrom N: Actuarial assessment of sex offender recidivism risk: a cross validation of the RRASOR and the Static-99 in Sweden. Law and Human Behavior 2001; 25:629-645
52. Davey M, Goodnough A: Doubts rise as states hold sex offenders after prison: costly efforts keep ex-convicts off streets, but mandated treatment often fails. New York Times, March 4, 2007; 1, 18, 19
53. Sterling R: Personal communication, December 13, 2008
54. Linehan M: Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder. New York, Guilford Press, 1993
55. Janus E: Failure to Protect: America's Sexual Predator Laws and the Rise of the Preventive State. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 2006
56. Piller C, Romney L: State pays millions for contract psychologists to keep up with Jessica's Law. Los Angeles Times, August 10, 2008 www.latimes.com
57. Analysis by the Legislative Analyst: Proposition 83: Sex offenders. Sexually violent persons. Punishment, residence restrictions and monitoring. Initiative statute, 2006 http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2006/83-11-2006.htm
58. Hennessy V: Big bucks to house sex offender. Monterey Herald, May 25, 2008
59. Vick K: Laws to track sex offenders encouraging homelessness. December 27, 2008; A03. http://www.washingtonpost.com
60. Yung C: The emerging criminal war on sex offenders, 2009 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1456042
61. Wakefield H: The vilification of sex offenders: does it increase recidivism? Presentation at the 22nd Annual symposium of the American College of Forensic Psychology, San Francisco, CA, 2006
62. Keen S: Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the Hostile Imagination. New York, Harper Collins, 1986
63. Strong M: Monsters in our midst. San Francisco Focus 1996; 63-74
64. Douard J: Loathing the sinner, medicalizing the sin: why sexually violent predator statutes are unjust. Int Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2007; 30:36-48
65. Cohen S: Folk Devils and Moral Panics (3rd Ed.). New York, Routledge, 1972
66. Gallup Poll, June 9, 2005. http://www.gallup.com/video/16708/sex- offender.aspx
67. Matthews C: Hardball, September 2, 2009
68. Sheindlin Judge Judy: Appearing on Larry King Live, September 8, 2009
69. Fortney T, Levenson J, Brannon Y, Baker J: Myths and facts about sexual offenders: implications for treatment and public policy. Sexual Offender Treatment 2007; 2:1:1-15
70. Ellison v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 639 S.E. 2d 209 2007
71. Wisconsin v. Luttrell, Court of Appeals, District 1, No. 2007AP1840, May 20, 2008
72. American Psychiatric Association: Dangerous Sex Offenders: A Task Force Report of the American Psychiatric Association. Washington, DC, Author, 1999
73. Ewing C: Dr. Death and the case for an ethical ban on psychology and psychological prediction of dangerousness in capital sentencing proceedings. American Journal of Law and Medicine 1983; 8:407-428
74. Ewing C: Preventive detention and execution: the constitutionality of punishing future crimes. Law and Human Behavior 1991; 15:139-163
75. Grisso T, Tomkins A: Communicating violence risk assessments. American Psychologist 1996; 51:928-930
76. Zonana H: Sex offender testimony: junk science or unethical testimony. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 2000; 28:386-388
77. Ward T, Gannon T, Birgden A: Human rights and the treatment of sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 2007; 19:195-216
78. Glaser B: Therapeutic jurisprudence: an ethical paradigm for sex offender treatment programs. Western Criminal Review 2003; 4:2:143-154
79. Montaldi D: The logic of sexually violent predator status in the United States of America. Sexual Offender Treatment 2007; 2:1-28
80. Wollert R: Poor diagnostic reliability, the Null-Bayes Logic Model and their implications for sexually violent predator evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy and the Law 2007; 13:3:167-203
81. Cooke D: More prejudicial than probative? The Journal Online, January 18, 2010 http://www.journalonline.co.uk/legals
82. Lacombe D: Consumed by sex: the treatment of sex offenders in risk society. The British Journal of Criminology 2008; 48:55-74