Handbook on psychopathy and law
In: Oxford series in neuroscience, law, and philosophy
5 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Oxford series in neuroscience, law, and philosophy
In: Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Band 11, Heft 1, S. 105-131
SSRN
In: Substance use & misuse: an international interdisciplinary forum, Band 58, Heft 3, S. 444-453
ISSN: 1532-2491
In: BioSocieties: an interdisciplinary journal for social studies of life sciences, Band 14, Heft 3, S. 463-468
ISSN: 1745-8560
A group of 12 authors (GA) shared a statement of concern (SoC) warning against the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003) to assess risk for serious institutional violence in US capital sentencing cases (DeMatteo et al., 2020). Notably, the SoC was not confined to capital sentencing issues, but included institutional violence in general. Central to the arguments presented in the SoC was that the PCL-R has poor predictive validity for institutional violence and also inadequate field reliability. The GA also identified important issues about the fallibility and inappropriate use of any clinical/forensic assessments, questionable evaluator qualifications, and their effects on capital sentencing decisions. However, as a group of forensic academics, researchers, and clinicians, we are concerned that the PCL-R represents a psycholegal red herring, while the SoC did not address critical legislative, systemic, and evaluator/rating issues that affect all risk assessment tools . We contend that the SoC's literature review was selective and that the resultant opinions about potential uses and misuses of the PCL-R were ultimately misleading. We focus our response on the evidence and conclusions proffered by the GA concerning the use of the PCL-R in capital and other cases. We provide new empirical findings regarding the PCL-R's predictive validity and field reliability to further demonstrate its relevance for institutional violence risk assessment and management. We further demonstrate why the argument that group data cannot be relevant for single-case assessments is erroneous. Recommendations to support the ethical and appropriate use of the PCL-R for risk assessment are provided. ; Facultad de Ciencias Médicas
BASE