NCJ Number
115481
Journal
Trial Volume: 25 Issue: 2 Dated: (February 1989) Pages: 82-85
Date Published
1989
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Although mental health professionals are frequently asked to testify about the likelihood that someone will act violently, studies have repeatedly shown that it is impossible to predict violence.
Abstract
As a result, controversy exists in the medical community regarding the ethical and legal implications of clinicians' expert testimony. In a recent article in Science magazine, Faust and Ziskin contended that clinicians fall far short of the legal standard for medical expertise. Similarly, research has shown that a clinician's prediction that someone will act violently is twice as likely to be wrong as it is to be right. Nevertheless, predictions are a routine part of legal proceedings from parole and bail hearings to civil commitment and sentencing proceedings. Of the 37 States that allow the death penalty, 8 jurisdictions consider, during sentencing, a defendant's likelihood of being a continuing threat to society. In addition, defense attorneys say that the testimony is almost impossible to counteract. However, moderates argue that predictions of dangerousness have a limited place in the justice system, particularly for short-term civil commitments. Discussion of the case of Satterwhite v. Texas, summary of the liability of mental health professionals regarding warning potential victims, and 12 reference notes.