The Prediction of Future Behavior: The Empty Promises of Expert Clinical and Actuarial Testimony
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21875/tjc.v1i1.3284Keywords:
Behavior Prediction, Clinical Testimony, Actuarial Testimony, Risk Assessment, Mental Illness, Predição do comportamento, Perícia clínica, Perícia atuarial, Avaliação de risco, Doença mentalAbstract
ABSTRACT: Testimony about the future dangerousness of a person has become a central staple of many judicial processes. In settings such as bail, sentencing, and parole decisions, in rulings about the civil confinement of the mentally ill, and in custody decisions in a context of domestic violence, the assessment of a person's propensity towards physical or sexual violence is regarded as a deciding factor. These assessments can be based on two forms of expert testimony: actuarial or clinical. The purpose of this paper is to examine the scientific and epistemological basis of both methods of prediction or risk assessment. My analysis will reveal that this kind of expert testimony is scientifically baseless. The problems I will discuss will generate a dilemma for factfinders: on the one hand, given the weak predictive abilities of the branches of science involved, they should not admit expert clinical or actuarial testimony as evidence; on the other hand, there is a very strong tradition and a vast jurisprudence that supports the continued use of this kind of expert testimony. It is a clear case of the not so uncommon conflict between science and legal tradition.
RESUMO: O testemunho sobre a periculosidade futura de uma pessoa tem sido uma marca central de muitos processos judiciais. Em contextos tais como pagamento de fiança, proferimento de sentença e decisões sobre liberdade condicional, confinamento civil do doente mental e costódia em casos de violência doméstica, a avaliação da propensão de uma pessoa à violência física ou sexual é considerada um fator fundamental. Essas avaliações podem ser baseadas em duas formas de perícia: atuarial ou clínica. O propósito deste artigo é examinar a base científica e epistemológica de ambos os métodos de predição ou de avaliação de risco. Minha análise revelará que este tipo de perícia não possui fundamento. Os problemas que serão discutidos gerarão um dilema para os investigadores dos fatos no processo judicial: por um lado, dadas as habilidades preditivas fracas dos ramos da ciência envolvidos, não deveriam admitir a perícia atuarial e clínica como meios de prova; por outro lado, há uma tradição muito forte e uma vasta jurisprudência que dá suporte ao uso contínuo deste tipo de prova pericial. Este é um caso claro do não tão incomum conflito entre a ciência e a tradição jurídica.
References
AMENTA, Amy E.; Guy, Laura S.; e Edens, John F. Sex Offender Risk Assessment: A Cautionary Note Regarding Measures Attempting to Quantify Violence Risk. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, n. 3, p. 39-50, 2003.
AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION. Task Force on Sexually Dangerous Offenders. (1999). Dangerous sex offenders: A Task Force report of the American Psychiatric Association. Washington: American Psychiatric Association.
AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders DSM-5. Washington: APA, 2013.
ALLEN, Ronald. On the Significance of Batting Averages And Strikeout Totals: A Clarification Of The “Naked Statistical Evidence” Debate, The Meaning Of “Evidence,” And The Requirement Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Tulane Law Review, n. 65, p. 1093-1110, 1991.
BAKER, Emily. The Adam Walsh Act: Un-Civil Commitment. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, n. 37, p. 143-165, 2009.
BARBAREE, Howard; Langton, Calvin; e Peacock, Edward. Different Actuarial Risk Measures Produce Different Risk Rankings for Sexual Offenders. Sexual Abuse, n. 18, p. 423-440, 2006.
BEECHER-MONAS, Erica. Evaluating Scientific Evidence. An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
BRIEF for Amicus Curiae of the American Psychiatric Association, Barefoot v. Estelle, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1529 (March 4, 1983) (No. 82-6080).
Bureau of Prisons. Civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person. Federal Register, 72, p. 43205-43209, 2007.
EDITORIAL: Shock and Law [Editorial]. Nature, 490, 446, 2012.
FABIAN, John. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act: Legal and psychological aspects of the new civil commitment law for federal sex offenders. Cleveland State Law Review, n. 60, p. 307-364, 2012.
FAIGMAN, David; Monahan, John; e Slobogin, Christopher. Group to Individual (G2i) Inference in Scientific Expert Testimony. University of Chicago Law Review, 81, p. 417-480, 2014.
FAZEL, Seena et al. Use of Risk Assessment Tools to Predict Violence and Antisocial Behaviour in 73 Samples Involving 24827 People: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. BMJ, 345, e4692, 2012.
FITCH, W. Lawrence. Sexual Offender Commitment in the United States: Legislative and Policy Concerns. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, n. 989, p. 489--501, 2003.
GOLDBERG, Lewis. Simple Models or Simple Processes: Some Research on Clinical Judgments. American Psychologist, n. 23, p. 482-496, 1968.
HAMILTON, Melissa. Adventures in Risk: Predicting Violent and Sexual Recidivism in Sentencing Law. Arizona State Law Journal, n. 47, p. 1-62, 2015.
HANSON, Karl. Recidivism and Age. Follow-up Data from 4673 Sexual Offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, n. 17, p. 1046-1062, 2002.
HARCOURT, Bernard. Against prediction. Profile, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
HARE, Robert. Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, 1991.
HARRIS, Andrew et al. Static-99 coding rules: revised 2003. Solicitor General Canada, 2003.
HARRIS, Grant; Rice, Marnie; e Quinsey, Vernon. Violent Recidivism of Mentally Disordered Offenders. The development of a statistical prediction instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior, n. 20, p. 315-335, 1993.
HARRIS, Grant; Rice, Marnie. Bayes and Base Rates: What Is an Informative Prior for Actuarial Violence Risk Assessment? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, n. 31, p 103-124, 2013.
HASTINGS, Mark et al. Predictive and Incremental Validity of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide Scores with Male and Female Jail Inmates. Psychological Assessments, n. 23, p. 174-183, 2012.
HIGGINS, Nicola et al. Assessing Violence Risk in General Adult Psychiatry. Psychiatry Bulletin, n. 29, p. 131-133, 2005.
KELLEY, Ken; PREACHER, Kristopher. On Effect Size. Psychological Methods, n. 17, p. 137-152, 2012.
KHIROYA, Reena; WEAVER, Tim; and MADEN, Tony. Use and Perceived Utility of Structured Violence Risk Assessment in English Medium Secure Forensic Units. Psychiatry Bulletin, n. 33, p. 129-32, 2009.
KRAUSS, Daniel; SALES, Bruce D. The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, n. 7, p. 267-310, 2001.
LAUDAN, Larry. Truth, Error, and Criminal Law. An Essay in Legal Epistemology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
LIDZ, Charles W.; MULVEY, Edward Patrick; and GARDNER, William. The Accuracy of Predictions of Violence to Others. Journal of the American Medical Association, n. 269, p. 1007-1011, 1993.
LITWACK, Thomas R. Actuarial versus Clinical Assessments of Dangerousness. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, n. 7, p. 409--443, 2001.
MONAHAN, John. Violence Risk Assessment: Scientific Validity and Evidentiary Admissibility. Washington and Lee Law Review, 57, 901-918, 2000.
MOSER, Charles; KLEINPLATZ, Peggy. DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, n. 17, p. 91-109, 2005.
MOSSMAN, Douglas. Connecting Which Dots? Problems in Detecting Uncommon Events. In: A. J. R. Harris & C. A. Pagé (eds.). Sexual homicides and paraphilias: The Correctional Service of Canada's Experts Forum 2007. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2008.
MURRAY, Dominic. Psychiatry in the scientific image. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006.
QUINSEY, Vernon L. Demographic and Clinical Variables Associated with Release from a Maximum Security Psychiatric Institution. Criminal Justice and Behavior, n. 6, p. 390-399, 1979.
QUINSEY, Vernon L. The long-Term Management of the Mentally Disordered Offender. In S. J. Hucker, C. D. Webster, & M. Ben-Aron (Eds.). Mental disorder and criminal responsibility. Toronto: Butterworths, 1981, p. 137-155.
QUINSEY, Vernon L.; and AMBTMAN, Rudolf. Variables Affecting Psychiatrists' and Teachers' Assessments of the Dangerousness of Mentally Ill Offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, n. 47, p. 353-362, 1979.
QUINSEY, Vernon et al. Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk. Washington: American Psychological Association, 1998.
REED, Geoffrey M. Toward ICD-11: Improving the Clinical Utility of WHO's International CLASSIFICATION of Mental Disorders. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, n. 41, p. 457--464, 2010.
RENNISON, Callie M. Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992--2000. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002.
RETTENBERGER, Martin et al. Prospective Actuarial Risk Assessment: A Comparison of Five Risk Assessment Instruments in Different Sexual Offender Subtypes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, n. 54, p. 169-186, 2010.
ROBERTS, Paul; Zuckerman, Adrian. Criminal Evidence. 2a edição. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
ROSENFELD, B., EDENS, J., and Lowmaster, S. Measure development in forensic psychology. In Rosenfeld, B., & Penrod, S. D. (Eds.). Research Methods in Forensic Psychology. Hoboken: Wiley, 2003, p. 26-42.
SCHAUER, Frederick. Profiles, Probabilities and Stereotypes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.
SCHAUER, Frederick. Can Bad Science Be Good Evidence? Neuroscience, Lie Detection, and Beyond. Cornell Law Review, n. 95, p. 1191-1219, 2010.
SCHINKA, J. A.; SINES, J. O. Correlates of Accuracy in Personality Assessment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, n. 30, p. 374-377, 1974.
SINGH, J. P., GRANN, M., and FAZEL, S. A Comparative Study of Violence Risk Assessment Tools: A Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis of 68 Studies Involving 25,980 Participants. Clinical Psychology Review, n. 31, p. 499-513, 2011.
SKEEM, Jennifer L., & Monahan, John. Current directions in violence risk assessment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 38-42, 2011.
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION. Guidelines Manual, 2013. Disponível em: http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2013_Guidelines/index.cfm. Acessado em: maio 2016.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems 10th revision, 2010. Disponível em: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2016/en
WIGGINS, Jerry S. Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Assessment. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1973.
WRIGHT, Richard W. Causation, responsibility, risk, probability, naked statistics, and proof: Pruning the bramble bush by clarifying the concepts. Iowa Law Review, n. 73, p. 1001-1077, 1988.
YANG, M.; WONG, S.C.P., and COID, J. The Efficacy of Violence Prediction: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Nine Risk Assessment Tools. Psychological Bulletin, n. 136, p. 740--767, 2010.
ZONANA, Howard. Sexual disorders: New and expanded proposals for the DSM-5—do we need them? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, n. 39, p. 245--9, 2011.
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Public Law No. 109-248 (2006).
Barefoot v. Estelle 463 US 880 (1983).
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 US 579 (1993).
James v. United States 550 US 192 (2007).
Kansas v. Hendriks 521 US 346 (1997).
Kansas v. Crane 534 US 407 (2002).
Nenno v. State 979 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
Schall v. Martin 467 US 253 (1984).
Solem v. Helm 463 US 277 (1983).
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334 (1976).
Taylor v. United States 495 US 575 (1990).
Tennessee v, Garner et.al. 471 US 1 (1985).
United States v. Comstock 560 US 128 (2010).
United States v. Salerno 481 US 739 (1987).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:
1. The authors maintain the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License that allows the sharing of the work with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are allowed to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g., publishing in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or as a personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this may generate productive changes, as well as increase the impact and citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Brazil License.
