Risk assessment of child-pornography-exclusive offenders.

OBJECTIVES: A sizeable percentage of federally sentenced child pornography offenders have no history of other criminal offenses (hereinafter "child-pornography-exclusive offenders"). There is a critical legal need to assess the recidivism risk of this population. The Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool (CPORT) is a commonly used actuarial instrument developed specifically to assess the risk of recidivism among child pornography offenders. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that there would be a sound scientific basis supporting the use of the CPORT in the United States as well as research demonstrating its applicability to child-pornography-exclusive offenders, given that the instrument is currently being used in forensic settings. METHOD: We critically examined all of the existing empirical studies that constitute the research base of the CPORT. RESULTS: The empirical studies of the CPORT suffer from at least three significant limitations: extremely small samples of recidivists, inordinate amounts of missing data, and potentially outdated samples. Further, none of the studies have tested the CPORT in a sample of offenders in the United States. An illustrative example of how the instrument has been misapplied in forensic settings and courtroom testimony is provided. CONCLUSIONS: These issues make it inappropriate to use the CPORT on child-pornography-exclusive offenders in the United States at this time. We conclude by describing avenues for future research that can advance our understanding of this distinct and growing population of offenders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Addition of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy or Brachytherapy Boost to External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: In men with localized prostate cancer, the addition of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) or a brachytherapy boost (BT) to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) have been shown to improve various oncologic end points. Practice patterns indicate that those who receive BT are significantly less likely to receive ADT, and thus we sought to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the predicted outcomes of a randomized trial of EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review identified published randomized trials comparing EBRT with or without ADT, or EBRT (with or without ADT) with or without BT, that reported on overall survival (OS). Standard fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed for each comparison, and a meta-regression was conducted to adjust for use and duration of ADT. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT. Bayesian analyses were also performed, and a rank was assigned to each treatment after Markov Chain Monte Carlo analyses to create a surface under the cumulative ranking curve. RESULTS: Six trials compared EBRT with or without ADT (n = 4,663), and 3 compared EBRT with or without BT (n = 718). The addition of ADT to EBRT improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.81]), whereas the addition of BT did not significantly improve OS (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.36]). In a network meta-analysis, EBRT plus ADT had improved OS compared with EBRT plus BT (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.89]). Bayesian modeling demonstrated an 88% probability that EBRT plus ADT resulted in superior OS compared with EBRT plus BT. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that current practice patterns of omitting ADT with EBRT plus BT may result in inferior OS compared with EBRT plus ADT in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. ADT for these men should remain a critical component of treatment regardless of radiotherapy delivery method until randomized evidence demonstrates otherwise.

Risk assessment communication difficulties: An empirical examination of the effects of categorical versus probabilistic risk communication in sexually violent predator decisions.

Expert testimony concerning risk and its communication to the trier of fact has important implications for some of the most significant legal decisions. In a simulated sexual violent predator hearing, we examined how mock jurors interpret and use recidivism risk expert testimony communicated either categorically, using verbal labels, or probabilistically, using numeric values. Based upon the STATIC-99R, we compared mock jurors' decision-making and verdicts when we manipulated the style of risk communication across four different risk levels. In terms of verdict decisions, we found that higher risk levels were associated with more commitment decisions, but that this relationship only existed for the categorical risk-communication format. We also replicated previous research demonstrating that participants overestimate recidivism risk in general, especially when higher risk is communicated categorically. Finally, our participants did not differentiate well between the four levels of risk offered, instead apparently employing a more simplistic dichotomy between "low" or "high" risk for both their verdict decisions and their thresholds for commitment. The legal and policy implications of our findings are discussed, as well as suggestions for more effective presentation of expert risk testimony.

Mental state at time of offense in the hot tub: An empirical examination of concurrent expert testimony in an insanity case.

The role of experts and their presentation of testimony in insanity cases remain controversial. In order to decrease possible expert bias associated with this testimony, a number of different alternatives to adversarial presentation have been suggested. Two such alternatives are the use of court-appointed experts and the use of concurrent testimony (or "hot-tubbing"), in which opposing experts provide testimony concurrently and converse with each other directly. An experiment using a sample of venire jurors (n = 150) tested the effect of these alternatives. Results indicate that participants' pre-existing attitudes towards the insanity defense had significant effects on their comprehension of expert testimony, their evaluations of the two opposing experts, and their eventual verdicts, over and above the presentation format (i.e., concurrent vs. traditional testimony) or the use of court-appointed experts (vs. traditional adversarial experts). When concurrent testimony was presented, defense-favoring experts were perceived by jurors as more credible than their traditional counterparts, though comprehension of the testimony did not increase; nor did the presentation format or the affiliation of the experts affect verdicts. The legal and policy implications of the incorporation of the hot-tubbing procedure to US courts are discussed.

The biasing effect of the "sexually violent predator" label on legal decisions.

Public fear has driven legislation designed to identify and exclude sexual offenders from society, culminating in sexually violent predator (SVP) statutes, in which a sex offender who has served his prison sentence is hospitalized indefinitely if a jury determines that he is likely to reoffend as a result of a mental disorder. Jurors rarely vote not to commit a previously-convicted sex offender as an SVP. This study tests whether the mere label of "sexually violent predator" affects these legal decisions. Venire jurors (n=161) were asked to decide whether an individual who had been incarcerated for 16years should be released on parole. The individual was either labeled as a.) a sexually violent predator or b.) a convicted felon, and all other information was identical between the conditions. Jurors were over twice as likely to deny parole to the SVP compared to the felon, even though they did not consider him any more dangerous or any more likely to reoffend. Demographic variables did not moderate this finding. However, jurors' desire to 'get revenge' and to 'make the offender pay', as measured by Gerber and Jackson's (2013) Just Deserts Scale, did significantly relate to decisions to deny parole. These findings suggest that jurors' decisions in SVP hearings are driven by legally impermissible considerations, and that the mere label of "sexually violent predator" induces bias into the decision making process.

Risk assessment in the law: legal admissibility, scientific validity, and some disparities between research and practice.

Risk assessment expert testimony remains an area of considerable concern within the U.S. legal system. Historically, controversy has surrounded the constitutionality of such testimony, while more recently, following the adoption of new evidentiary standards that focus on scientific validity, the admissibility of expert testimony has received greater scrutiny. Based on examples from recent appellate court cases involving sexual violent predator (SVP) hearings, we highlight difficulties that courts continue to face in evaluating this complex expert testimony. In each instance, we point to specific problems in courts' reasoning that lead it to admit expert testimony of questionable scientific validity. We conclude by offering suggestions for how courts might more effectively evaluate the scientific validity of risk expert testimony and how mental health professionals might better communicate their expertise to the courts.

The effect of acknowledging mock jurors' feelings on affective and cognitive biases: it depends on the sample.

An intervention designed to correct affective and cognitive biases was tested in the context of a civil commitment hearing of a sexually violent predator. Potential differences between a college student mock jury sample and a more representative, juror venire sample in reaction to these bias correction interventions were explored. In the first of two experiments, undergraduate mock jurors (n = 130) demonstrated a leniency effect when the sex offender's attorney acknowledged jurors' emotional reactions and motivated them to thoughtfully weigh the evidence. The second experiment failed to replicate these findings with a more ecologically valid sample (n = 300). Several differences between samples were found: representative jurors, as opposed to undergraduates, were sensitive to differences between pure clinical and actuarial expert testimony; and measures of intrinsic cognitive effort predicted verdicts for undergraduates, but not for representative jurors. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mock jury research: where do we go from here?

This paper reviews the four types of validity that make up Cook and Campbell's traditional approach for social science research in general and psychological research in particular: internal validity, statistical conclusion validity, external validity, and construct validity. The most important generalizability threat to the validity of jury research is not likely a selection main effect (i.e., the effect of relying solely on undergraduate mock jurors) but is more likely the interaction of sample with construct validity factors. Researchers who try to capture the trial process with experimental paradigms may find that undergraduate mock jurors react differently to those efforts than do more representative community samples. We illustrate these issues with the seven papers that make up this volume, and conclude by endorsing Diamond's call for a two-stage research process in which findings with samples of convenience gradually add more realistic trial processes and representative samples to confirm the initial findings and increase the research program's credibility.

Reality check: a comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predator civil commitment.

Despite concerns about generalizability, past mock trial research has concluded that effects of sample (i.e., students versus representative mock jurors) are negligible. The current study was conducted to explore this conclusion within the conceptual framework of cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST). Through a mock civil commitment hearing of a sexually violent predator, responses of student (n = 138) and representative (n = 240) mock jurors were compared. Results revealed several important differences between samples: (a) the student sample scored higher on the rational processing measure (i.e., need for cognition); (b) students' verdicts were also significantly correlated to a measure of their cognitive processing style, an enduring personal characteristic related to the extent to which an individual engages in either effortful/effortless cognition; and (c) the representative sample was more punitive, was more persuaded by clinical expert testimony, and evidenced a greater gender effect in its decisions. Implications for jury decision-making research are discussed.

Contemplating the presence of third party observers and facilitators in psychological evaluations.

Significant controversy surrounds how psychologists should balance competing interests when considering whether and under what conditions third parties should be permitted to be present during psychological evaluations. This is especially true in forensic contexts where much is often at stake for those being assessed. Unfortunately, existing professional statements on this issue provide limited guidance to practitioners on how to think about this issue. In this article, the authors (a) distinguish between different types of third party participants, (b) highlight the competing interests that underlie third party presence decisions, and (c) offer a framework for psychologists to employ when considering third party presence.

Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony.

Past research examining the effects of expert testimony on the future dangerousness of a defendant in death penalty sentencing found that jurors are more influenced by less scientific clinical expert testimony and tend to devalue scientific actuarial testimony. This study was designed to determine whether these findings extend to civil commitment trials for sexual offenders and to test a theoretical rationale for this effect. In addition, we investigated the influence of a recently developed innovation in risk assessment procedures, Guided Professional Judgment (GPJ) instruments. Consistent with a cognitive-experiential self-theory based explanation, mock jurors motivated to process information in an experiential condition were more influenced by clinical testimony, while mock jurors in a rational mode were more influenced by actuarial testimony. Participants responded to clinical and GPJ testimony in a similar manner. However, participants' gender exerted important interactive effects on dangerousness decisions, with male jurors showing the predicted effect while females did not. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.

Evaluating science outside the trial box: applying Daubert to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines' criminal history score.

A limited amount of research exists examining the ability of the Criminal History Score of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) to achieve one of its most essential objectives: prediction of recidivism. Building on the work of Schopp [Schopp, R. (2001). Competency, condemnation, and commitment: An integrated theory of mental health law. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association], it is suggested that the scientific admissibility framework and the underlying principles announced by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical [Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 507 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993)] should be expanded beyond the constraints of the evidentiary admissibility phase of trial and should apply to legislative and administrative rules that have: a) an empirically testable purpose and b) a substantial impact on the rights of individuals. Such an analysis offers a useful mechanism for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of social science being used by legal institutions. Based upon a hypothetical Daubert analysis, the scientific validity of the Guidelines' Criminal History Score is assessed and demonstrated to be insufficient. The law and policy implications of this finding are discussed.

The effects of judicial admonitions on hearsay evidence.

Using a simulated civil case, this experiment investigated whether mock jurors: (a) are able to disregard hearsay evidence when admonished to do so, (b) experience psychological reactance and "backfire effects" in proportion to the strength of judicial admonition instructing them to disregard hearsay evidence, and (c) are able to recognize and disregard hearsay evidence without judicial instructions. Results indicate that jurors were unable to disregard inadmissible hearsay testimony in some legal decisions regardless of whether there were judicial instructions to do so. Jurors exhibited backfire effects paying more attention to inadmissible hearsay evidence when they were strongly instructed to disregard it. More specifically, juror backfire effects were evident in both their confidence in their liability verdicts and in their punitive damage awards. The legal and policy implications of these findings are discussed.

The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases.

Past research examining the effects of actuarial and clinical expert testimony on defendants' dangerousness in Texas death penalty sentencing has found that jurors are more influenced by less scientific pure clinical expert testimony and less influenced by more scientific actuarial expert testimony (Krauss & Lee, 2003; Krauss & Sales, 2001). By applying cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST) to juror decision-making, the present study was undertaken in an attempt to offer a theoretical rationale for these findings. Based on past CEST research, 163 mock jurors were either directed into a rational mode or experiential mode of processing. Consistent with CEST and inconsistent with previous research using the same stimulus materials, results demonstrate that jurors in a rational mode of processing more heavily weighted actuarial expert testimony in their dangerousness assessments, while those jurors in the experiential condition were more influenced by clinical expert testimony. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.

Adjusting risk of recidivism: do judicial departures worsen or improve recidivism prediction under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?

A limited amount of research exists examining the ability of clinical or intuitive adjustments of formalistic methods of decision-making to improve upon predictive accuracy beyond that of the original measure. Using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and the departure decisions of federal judges, the recidivism predictive utilities of two measures were compared. The two measures were the Criminal History category, based on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (a formalistic procedure), and a re-coded measure of criminal history derived from the sentences actually imposed by judges after they departed from the Guidelines upwards or downwards for recidivism reasons (an adjustment to the formalistic procedure). Both a 10 year post-sentencing recidivism follow-up and a 6 year uniform follow-up period suggested that the Criminal History category performed poorly in predicting recidivism for this offender population, and that judicial departures not only failed to improve, but actually worsened, the predictive accuracy of pre-departure judgments. Policy implications of the findings are discussed.