POST: "Flawed science?" by forensic psychologist Karen Franklin, Ph.D, published on her very insightful Blog 'Forensic Psychologist' on February 15, 2020. (Karen Franklin is a forensic psychologist and adjunct professor at Alliant University in Northern California. She is a former criminal investigator and legal affairs reporter. Check out her website for more professional background.")
PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "In one of two significant developments, a group of researchers today released evidence of systematic problems with the state of psychological test admissibility in court. The researchers' comprehensive survey found that only about two-thirds of the tools used by clinicians in forensic settings were generally accepted in the field, while even fewer -- only about four in ten -- were favorably reviewed in authoritative sources such as the Mental Measurements Yearbook. Despite this, psychological tests are rarely challenged when they are introduced in court, Tess M.S. Neal and her colleagues found. Even when they are, the challenges fail about two-thirds of the time. Worse yet, there is little relationship between a tool’s psychometric quality and the likelihood of it being challenged. “Some of the weakest tools tend to get a pass from the courts,” write the authors of the newly issued report, "Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping 'Junk Science' Out of the Courtroom?”
------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "In a parallel development in the field, 13 prominent forensic psychologists have issued a rare public rebuke of improper use of the controversial Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) in court. The group is calling for a halt to the use of the PCL-R in the sentencing phase of death-penalty cases as evidence that a convicted killer will be especially dangerous if sentenced to life in prison rather than death."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
GIST: This is a long informative article. Here is a 'taste. The who piece deserves a 'read.'...Psychological tests hold a magical allure as objective truth. They
retain their luster even while forensic science techniques previously
regarded as bulletproof are undergoing unprecedented scrutiny.
Based in large part on our briefcases full of tests, courts have
granted psychologists unprecedented influence over an ever-increasing
array of thorny issues, from future dangerousness to parental fitness to
refugee trauma. Behind the scenes, meanwhile, a lucrative
test-production industry is gleefully rubbing its hands all the way to
the bank. In other forensic “science” niches such as bite-mark analysis and
similar types of pattern matching that have contributed to wrongful
convictions, appellate attorneys have had to wage grueling, decades-long
efforts to reign in shoddy practice. (See Radley Balko's The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist for
more on this.) But leaders in the field of forensic psychology are
grabbing the bull by the horns and inviting us to do better, proposing
novel ways for us to self-police..........In one of two significant developments, a group of researchers today
released evidence of systematic problems with the state of psychological
test admissibility in court. The researchers' comprehensive survey
found that only about two-thirds of the tools used by clinicians in
forensic settings were generally accepted in the field, while even fewer
-- only about four in ten -- were favorably reviewed in authoritative
sources such as the Mental Measurements Yearbook. Despite this, psychological tests are rarely challenged when they are introduced in court, Tess M.S. Neal
and her colleagues found. Even when they are, the challenges fail about
two-thirds of the time. Worse yet, there is little relationship between
a tool’s psychometric quality and the likelihood of it being
challenged. “Some of the weakest tools tend to get a pass from the courts,” write
the authors of the newly issued report, "Psychological Assessments in
Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping 'Junk Science' Out of the
Courtroom?” The report, currently in press in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
proposes that standard batteries be developed for forensic use, based
on the consensus of experts in the field as to which tests are the most
reliable and valid for assessing a given psycholegal issue. It further
cautions against forensic deployment of newly developed tests that are
being marketed by for-profit corporations before adequate research or
review by independent professionals. In a parallel development in the field, 13 prominent forensic
psychologists have issued a rare public rebuke of improper use of the
controversial Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) in court. The group is
calling for a halt to the use of the PCL-R in the sentencing phase of
death-penalty cases as evidence that a convicted killer will be
especially dangerous if sentenced to life in prison rather than death..........It’s exciting that forensic psychology leaders are drawing attention to
the dark underbelly of psychological test deployment in forensic
practice. But despite our best efforts, I fear that equitable solutions
may remain thorny and elusive."
The entire post can be read at:
https://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2020/02/flawed-science-two-efforts-launched-to.html
The entire post can be read at:
https://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2020/02/flawed-science-two-efforts-launched-to.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England.
------------------------------------------------------------------