Behavioral Sciences & the Law最新文献

This study was designed to empirically evaluate the classification accuracy of various definitions of invalid performance in two forced-choice recognition performance validity tests (PVTs; FCR_CVLT-II and Test of Memory Malingering [TOMM-2]). The proportion of at and below chance level responding defined by the binomial theory and making any errors was computed across two mixed clinical samples from the United States and Canada (N = 470) and two sets of criterion PVTs. There was virtually no overlap between the binomial and empirical distributions. Over 95% of patients who passed all PVTs obtained a perfect score. At chance level responding was limited to patients who failed ≥2 PVTs (91% of them failed 3 PVTs). No one scored below chance level on FCR_CVLT-II or TOMM-2. All 40 patients with dementia scored above chance. Although at or below chance level performance provides very strong evidence of non-credible responding, scores above chance level have no negative predictive value. Even at chance level scores on PVTs provide compelling evidence for non-credible presentation. A single error on the FCR_CVLT-II or TOMM-2 is highly specific (0.95) to psychometrically defined invalid performance. Defining non-credible responding as below chance level scores is an unnecessarily restrictive threshold that gives most examinees with invalid profiles a Pass.

The current prospective risk assessment study evaluated the application of the Chinese translation of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 Version 3 (HCR-20^V3) in a sample of 152 offenders with mental disorders and civil psychiatric patients. The ratings of the presence and relevance of risk factors were compared, as well as summary risk ratings (SRRs), both across offenders and civil psychiatric patients, and across male and female sub-samples. Interrater reliability was consistently “excellent” for the presence and relevance of risk factors and for SRRs. Concurrent validity analyses indicated that HCR-20^V3 was strongly correlated with Violence Risk Scale (from r = 0.53 to 0.71). The results of predictive validity analyses provided strong support for the bivariate associations between the main indices of HCR-20^V3 and violence within 6 weeks, 7–24 weeks, and 6 months; SRRs added incrementally to both relevance and presence ratings across three follow-up lengths.

On a population level, violence shares many similarities with communicable disease states and other public health issues. Therefore, there has been a push to apply public health interventions to the problem of societal violence and for some to even identify violence as the product of a disease state (e.g., changed brain). This conceptualization could lead to the development of new risk violence assessment tools and approaches predicated more on the public health model rather than existing instruments that have often been based on inpatient mental health populations or incarcerated populations. In this article, we will discuss aspects of legal obligation for risk violence “prediction/stratification”, the application of the public health communicable disease model to violence, as well as identify why it may not always translate to the individual with whom a clinician or forensic mental health evaluator interacts.

Custodial suspects must be informed of their Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966) prior to police questioning. Since this landmark decision, scholars have rigorously studied Miranda comprehension and reasoning among vulnerable groups including those with intellectual disabilities (ID). However, the focus on ID has left arrestees with limited cognitive capacities (i.e., LCCs with IQs between 70 and 85) entirely overlooked. The current dataset addressed this oversight using a large (N = 820) sample of pretrial defendants who had completed the Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA). Traditional (i.e., ID and no-ID) criterion groups were first analyzed with the standard error of measurement (SEM) removed. Second, a nuanced three-group framework included defendants with LCCs. Results indicate that LCC defendants are vulnerable to impaired Miranda comprehension (i.e., limited recall of the Miranda warning and deficits in Miranda-related vocabulary knowledge). Not surprisingly, their waiver decisions were often impaired by crucial misconceptions (e.g., seeing the investigating officers as beneficently on their side). The practical implications of these findings were underscored with respect to Constitutional safeguards for this critically important group, who have appeared to fall through the cracks in the criminal justice system.

The current study aimed to explore the relationships between attachment and childhood trauma on recidivism risk in a sample of Canadian offenders with mental disorder (OMDs). N = 56 OMDs completed the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) questionnaire, a measure of adult attachment (Experiences in Close Relationships Scale), and interview to determine recidivism risk (Level of Service/Case Management Inventory; LS/CMI). The variables of interest had small to moderate correlations. Multivariable regression analysis found that ACE scores but not attachment insecurity were associated with LS/CMI scores. Mediation analyses demonstrated that ACE scores fully mediated the association between attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance and recidivism risk. Results demonstrate that as exposure to diverse ACEs increased so did the risk to recidivate and this exposure mediated the relationship between attachment insecurity and recidivism risk. This study highlights the necessity of addressing both attachment insecurity and the experience of ACE when providing psychiatric services to OMDs.

Researchers posit that stigma-by-association may account for the discrimination that exonerees experience post-release. Exonerees who serve a longer prison sentence may experience more stigma than exonerees who spent less time in prison. Across two studies, we examined whether criminal history (exoneree, releasee, or control) or prison time (5 or 25 years) impacted landlords' willingness to rent their apartment. Authors responded to one-bedroom apartment listings in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada, inquiring about unit availability. The rental inquiries were identical except for criminal history and prison time. Across both studies, results demonstrated that landlords were significantly less likely to respond, and indicate availability, to exonerees and releasees compared to control. Landlords discriminated against exonerees when the exoneree did not mention a formal exoneration (Study 1) and explicitly mentioned that he was exonerated by DNA evidence (Study 2). Prison time had no significant impact. A content analysis of landlords' replies revealed that exonerees and releasees experienced more subtle forms of discrimination compared to individuals without a criminal history. Together, our results demonstrate that individuals who were formerly incarcerated and associated with prison—whether it be for 5 years or 25 years or a rightful or wrongful conviction—experience housing discrimination upon their release.

Sovereign Citizens comprise an understudied right-wing extremist movement in the United States who have grown in notoriety in recent years due to several high-profile instances of violence. Despite this, little empirical research has been conducted on Sovereign Citizens, including research on assessing their risk for violence. In this study, we sought to replicate and extend a prior study on Sovereign Citizen violence. Using open-source data, we added several new cases to a pre-existing dataset of violent and non-violent Sovereign Citizen incidents, yielding a total sample of 107 cases, 69 of which were scored using the HCR-20^V3, and 83 of which were scored using the TRAP-18. Our findings indicated that higher scores on both instruments were significantly associated with greater odds of cases being violent. We also observed that several risk factors occurred with significantly more frequency among violent cases than non-violent ones. Implications for future research and professional practice are discussed.

The aim of this study is to evaluate factors related to cessation of dangerousness of individuals under safety measures, through the study of psychiatric reports. This is a cross-sectional study, conducted through a retrospective analysis of expert psychiatric dangerousness cessation reports issued by the Federal District Coroner's Office, Brasília, Brazil. By examining official files, information was extracted from the reports (socio-demographic data, clinical characteristics, type of crime, historical characteristics and the search for items related to risk assessment present in instruments such as Historical, Clinical and Risk Management [HCR-20], Psychopathy Checklist – Revised [PCL-R], Two-Tiered Violence Risk Scale [TTV], Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability [START] and others) and submitted to statistical analysis and then compared to other studies on the subject. The items most considered by the experts were those referring to PCL-R, START and the “non static” part of HCR-20 and TTV. For the non-cessation of dangerousness, we've found: absence of remorse, fragile behavioral control, early behavioral problems, juvenile delinquency. For the cessation of dangerousness, we've found: presence of social skills, balanced emotional state, presence of social support, adherence to rules, good coping strategies, involvement with treatment and adherence. The systematization and standardization of forensic psychiatric reports needs to be established and the use of risk assessment instruments are essential to support better decisions by the experts.

Misinformation is widespread in political discourse, mental health literature, and hard science. This article describes recurrent publication of the same misinformation regarding parental alienation (PA), that is, variations of the statement: “PA theory assumes that the favored parent has caused PA in the child simply because the child refuses to have a relationship with the rejected parent, without identifying or proving alienating behaviors by the favored parent.” Ninety-four examples of the same misinformation were identified and subjected to citation analysis using Gephi software, which displays the links between citing material and cited material. The recurrent misinformation reported here is not trivial; these statements are significant misrepresentations of PA theory. Plausible explanations for this trail of misinformation are the psychological mindset of the authors (i.e., confirmation bias) and the authors' writing skills (e.g., sloppy research practices such as persistent use of secondary sources for their information). The authors of this article recommend that publications containing significant misinformation should be corrected or retracted.