NCJ Number
187046
Journal
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Volume: 28 Issue: 4 Dated: 2000 Pages: 386-388
Date Published
2000
Length
3 pages
Annotation
Sexual predator statutes require that an offender be psychiatrically evaluated for civil commitment after completing his penal sentence; this paper assesses whether such evaluations are valid and accurate and whether they should be accepted by the courts as expert testimony.
Abstract
In 1996 Grisso and Tompkins expressed guarded optimism about the progress being made in predicting future dangerousness. They stated, "When properly translated, the results of the new generation of violence risk studies might soon provide mental health professionals with a more reliable scientific foundation for describing a person's violence risk, thereby assisting society and deciding when these risks are sufficient to take action to protect the person and others. We have not yet achieved this capacity." T.W. Campbell conducted a recent review of the assessment instruments commonly used to assess the risk of sex offenders. He concluded that Grisso's and Tompkins' verdict is as appropriate in 2000 as it was in 1996. These findings raise profound questions for the professional who agrees to be an expert witness not only in sex offender cases but also in death penalty cases. Courts that admit sexual predator and death penalty testimony must develop appropriate guidelines for admission or rejection of such testimony. Professional organizations should develop or enforce current applicable ethics guidelines; and attorneys should be prepared to raise "Daubert/Kumho" and "Frye" objections concerning the scientific acceptance of such evaluations in the psychiatric field. Professionals must be aware of the limitations of the data and be scrupulous in their testimony about their significant limitations. 17 references