Clinical Predictors on Trial: A Case for Their Defense (From Dangerousness: Probability and Prediction, Psychiatry and Public Policy, P 209-225, Christopher D Webster, et al, eds. -- NCJ-110751)

• NCJ Number: 110758
• Author(s): V J McFarlane
• Date Published: 1985
• Length: 17 pages
• Sale Source: Cambridge University Press
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

With reference to preceding chapters examining the reliability and limitations of predictions of dangerousness, this final chapter presents, in trial form, the prosecution and defense arguments regarding mental health professionals' role in prediction and as expert witnesses.

Abstract

In defense of such predictions and mental health professionals' roles, it is argued that a number of steps can be taken to improve the accuracy and reliability of clinical assessments of dangerousness. These include enhanced communication between law and psychiatry; the development of guidelines for clinical reports; definition of the legal status of such reports; and standardization and regulation of courtroom testimony, including the presentation of findings in probabilistic terms and with substantiation based on thorough and objective assessment. It is concluded that, despite criticisms of predictive capacity and with adequate controls on quality, mental health professionals are best qualified to predict dangerousness and to provide a necessary and valuable resource to the courts by rendering such predictions as expert testimony. 2 notes and 30 references.