调查精神病检查表的作用-美国判例法的修订。

D. DeMatteo, J. Edens, Meghann P. Galloway, J. Cox, Shannon Toney Smith, Julie Present Koller, Benjamin Bersoff
{"title":"调查精神病检查表的作用-美国判例法的修订。","authors":"D. DeMatteo, J. Edens, Meghann P. Galloway, J. Cox, Shannon Toney Smith, Julie Present Koller, Benjamin Bersoff","doi":"10.1037/A0035452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) appears to be the most widely used measure of psychopathic traits in forensic settings around the world, relatively little is known about how often it is introduced into legal cases and the types of cases in which it is being used. DeMatteo and Edens (2006) first summarized the extant U.S. case law on the PCL-R, identifying 87 cases in which it had been introduced since its publication in 1991 through 2004. Using an identical search strategy employed in the earlier review (LexisNexis legal database), we identified 348 cases involving the PCL-R from 2005 through 2011. Notably, the PCL-R appeared to be primarily a “prosecution tool” in these cases in that it was rarely first introduced into evidence by the defense. In most cases it was used to assess offenders with significant histories of violence in the context of risk assessments—with resulting risk statements being strongly associated with the results of the PCL-R evaluation (i.e., high psychopathy equating with high recidivism risk, low psychopathy equating with low recidivism risk). Challenges to the admissibility of PCL-R evidence in these cases were rare and typically unsuccessful, even though some assertions, particularly in relation to the PCL-R's predictive validity, appeared to have questionable scientific support. On average, prosecution examiners reported PCL-R scores that were 7 points higher than defense examiners. We discuss these findings in the context of the appropriate roles for the PCL-R in court and its potential for misuse when evaluating psycho-legal issues.","PeriodicalId":423661,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Procedure (Topic)","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"56","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating the Role of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised in United States Case Law.\",\"authors\":\"D. DeMatteo, J. Edens, Meghann P. Galloway, J. Cox, Shannon Toney Smith, Julie Present Koller, Benjamin Bersoff\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/A0035452\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) appears to be the most widely used measure of psychopathic traits in forensic settings around the world, relatively little is known about how often it is introduced into legal cases and the types of cases in which it is being used. DeMatteo and Edens (2006) first summarized the extant U.S. case law on the PCL-R, identifying 87 cases in which it had been introduced since its publication in 1991 through 2004. Using an identical search strategy employed in the earlier review (LexisNexis legal database), we identified 348 cases involving the PCL-R from 2005 through 2011. Notably, the PCL-R appeared to be primarily a “prosecution tool” in these cases in that it was rarely first introduced into evidence by the defense. In most cases it was used to assess offenders with significant histories of violence in the context of risk assessments—with resulting risk statements being strongly associated with the results of the PCL-R evaluation (i.e., high psychopathy equating with high recidivism risk, low psychopathy equating with low recidivism risk). Challenges to the admissibility of PCL-R evidence in these cases were rare and typically unsuccessful, even though some assertions, particularly in relation to the PCL-R's predictive validity, appeared to have questionable scientific support. On average, prosecution examiners reported PCL-R scores that were 7 points higher than defense examiners. We discuss these findings in the context of the appropriate roles for the PCL-R in court and its potential for misuse when evaluating psycho-legal issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":423661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Criminal Procedure (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"56\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Criminal Procedure (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/A0035452\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Criminal Procedure (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/A0035452","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 56

摘要

虽然精神病检查表-修订(PCL-R;Hare, 2003)似乎是世界各地法医环境中最广泛使用的精神病特征测量方法,相对而言,人们对它被引入法律案件的频率以及它被使用的案件类型知之甚少。DeMatteo和Edens(2006)首先总结了美国现有的PCL-R判例法,确定了从1991年出版到2004年引入PCL-R的87个案例。使用与先前审查相同的搜索策略(LexisNexis法律数据库),我们确定了2005年至2011年期间涉及PCL-R的348个案例。值得注意的是,PCL-R在这些案件中似乎主要是一种“起诉工具”,因为它很少首先被辩方引入证据。在大多数情况下,它被用于在风险评估的背景下评估有重大暴力史的罪犯——结果的风险陈述与PCL-R评估的结果密切相关(即,高精神病等同于高再犯风险,低精神病等同于低再犯风险)。在这些案例中,对PCL-R证据的可采性的挑战是罕见的,而且通常是不成功的,尽管一些断言,特别是与PCL-R的预测有效性有关的断言,似乎有可疑的科学支持。检察机关审查员的PCL-R平均比辩方审查员高7分。我们在法庭上PCL-R的适当角色及其在评估心理法律问题时被滥用的可能性的背景下讨论这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Investigating the Role of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised in United States Case Law.
Although the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) appears to be the most widely used measure of psychopathic traits in forensic settings around the world, relatively little is known about how often it is introduced into legal cases and the types of cases in which it is being used. DeMatteo and Edens (2006) first summarized the extant U.S. case law on the PCL-R, identifying 87 cases in which it had been introduced since its publication in 1991 through 2004. Using an identical search strategy employed in the earlier review (LexisNexis legal database), we identified 348 cases involving the PCL-R from 2005 through 2011. Notably, the PCL-R appeared to be primarily a “prosecution tool” in these cases in that it was rarely first introduced into evidence by the defense. In most cases it was used to assess offenders with significant histories of violence in the context of risk assessments—with resulting risk statements being strongly associated with the results of the PCL-R evaluation (i.e., high psychopathy equating with high recidivism risk, low psychopathy equating with low recidivism risk). Challenges to the admissibility of PCL-R evidence in these cases were rare and typically unsuccessful, even though some assertions, particularly in relation to the PCL-R's predictive validity, appeared to have questionable scientific support. On average, prosecution examiners reported PCL-R scores that were 7 points higher than defense examiners. We discuss these findings in the context of the appropriate roles for the PCL-R in court and its potential for misuse when evaluating psycho-legal issues.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信