Age tables improve sex offender risk estimates

First, how old is the bus driver?

If 30 people are riding on a bus, and 30 more people board the bus, how old is the bus driver?

The answer, many second-graders will assure you, is 60. (They know your question involves numbers, but they don't quite get the concept.)

Clinical psychologists are a bit like that. Most of us were not drawn to the field by a deep and abiding passion for numbers. This puts some in a quagmire when they jump into forensic work, and courts order them to predict future events with a high degree of mathematical precision.

Illusion of certainty, certitude in illusions

Since passage of the Psychologist Full Employment Act,* I have observed a growing group-think among government sex offender evaluators in particular. At the annual meetings of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), crowds flock to hear self-appointed gurus give the latest in a series of ever-changing instructions about how to use their pet formulas, freely available online, that promise to take the guesswork out of risk assessment.

Psychologists who lack statistical sophistication are especially likely to swoon over fancy-sounding terms such as receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and to overlook the gaping flaws in current actuarial methodology. Instead of deriving from sound scientific principles such as random sampling, the tools are strung together from a motley collection of random data, much of it never published or subjected to peer review. As I have reported in the past, the Static-99 family of instruments are not very accurate, and tend to err in the direction of overestimating risk.

So, what about that bus driver?

Getting back to the bus driver: Let's say the second-graders happened to be right, and he really is 60 years old. What are the odds that he will be arrested for a sex crime, given that he recently served time for sexual assault? (I know, I know. What bus company would have hired him? But, play along with me here.)

If you asked a randomly selected passenger aboard the bus, the answer would be close to 100%.

But as you know, the public drastically overestimates sex offender recidivism rates. Let’s say that in reality, the average sex offender who scores in the low range on actuarial risk instruments has a 5% chance of sexual recidivism, while the average high-scoring offender has a 29% risk. Obviously, without knowing more about the bus driver, all you can say is that his risk of reoffense is somewhere between 5% and 29%.

But that too would be wrong. Because of his age, the bus driver's recidivism risk over the next eight years is more in the range of 2.7%.

Which is probably lower than the risk of a passenger getting trampled if you hollered out, “Eek! Sex offender!”

Good news: Age-stratified tables improve accuracy

The single most robust finding of two centuries of criminological research is that desistance from crime is near universal. As they age, criminals stop offending. This holds true across all eras, cultures, and offender groups. Sex offenders are not exempt from this pattern. As their libidos decline, they too settle down or burn out. Unfortunately, this “age invariance effect,” as it has been called, has trouble filtering down into the muddy waters of the sex-offender industry. (See my online review of the book Desistance in the Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology for more discussion of this.)

When age is not properly taken into accounting in estimating risk, the risk for older offenders -- such as our bus driver -- is overestimated, while the risk of younger offenders is underestimated.

Now, a collaboration by scholars from the United States, New Zealand, and Australia reveals that the accuracy of sex offender risk prediction can be significantly improved by using age-stratified tables to calculate risk.

The researchers tapped into an electronic database of all sex offenders in New Zealand who were released from prison over a 15-year period. They combined the data on those 5,880 offenders with recidivism data on 3,425 offenders published by Static-99 developer Karl Hanson in 2006, to develop what they call a "Multisample Age-Stratified Table of Sexual Recidivism Rates" (MATS-1).

Using Bayes's Theorem, the researchers were able to calculate likelihood ratios for different levels of risk. (Bayes's Theorem speaks to the probability of an event, taking into account both the phenomenon's base rate and the accuracy of a test. Cognitive scientists regard the Bayesian method as the gold standard, often using it synonymously with rational reasoning.)

Overall, the recidivism base rate of their combined international sample was 9% over a 10-year period, which is consistent with other reported research. Dividing offenders into three levels of risk based on their scores on actuarial risk instruments, the researchers found that those with low risk scores had an average 5% risk of reoffense within eight years, as compared with 12% for medium-risk offenders and 29% for offenders with high scores. By dividing sex offenders into various age groups, they were able to come up with more precise estimates of risk (see below table).



Evaluators should use this type of age-stratified procedure when giving estimates of recidivism risk, particularly for older offenders, the researchers advise. Estimating an offender's probability of recidivism based on the observed proportion of recidivists in a population is more accurate than relying on a set of untested assumptions. It is also much simpler and easier to explain to a trier of fact.

I highly recommend the article, published in the current issue of Sexual Abuse, which goes into a great deal of detail about the method and its superior stability and accuracy. The authors are Richard Wollert of Washington State University and the Mental Health Law and Policy Insitute at Simon Fraser University in Canada, Elliot Cramer, a statistician and professor emeritus from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Jacqueline Waggoner of the University of Portland, Alex Skelton of the New Zealand Department of Corrections, and James Vess of Deakin University in Australia. Request reprints from the first author (HERE).

Related blog posts:

• Delusional campaign for a world without risk (April 3, 2010)
• Static redux: Sandgropers jumping off rickety ship (Sept. 23, 2010)
• SVP industry sneak peek: Problems in Actuaryland (Oct. 4, 2009)
• New study: Do popular actuarials work? (April 20, 2010)
• Study: Actuarials fail to predict sexually violent recidivism (March 5, 2010)

For a good introduction to Bayesian reasoning, see Eliezer Yudkowsky's tutorial, "An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes' Theorem."

*The Psychologist Full Employment Act is the label conferred on the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) laws by a leading psychology-law scholar in a recent plenary address.

Prominent forensic psychologist hired in Ford Hood massacre case

The defense team for Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan has retained prominent forensic psychologist Xavier Amador. The New York-based expert has been involved in several high-profile cases involving the military, including those of PFC Lynndie England (of Abu Ghraib infamy) and U.S. Army sergeant Hasan Akbar, who killed two fellow officers and wounded 14 soldiers in Kuwait in 2003. He was also a defense expert in the trial of would-be 9/11 hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui.

Amador's hiring came amid hints that Hasan might be resistant to defense efforts to develop evidence of possible mental issues, according to a report in yesterday's Dallas Morning News. The defense dismissed a previous forensic psychologist due to "irreconcilable differences."

The defense team has successfully delayed the military's efforts to have its own panel of psychiatric experts evaluate Hasan. The military's sanity board will evaluate Hasan to determine whether he had a severe mental illness at the time of the shooting, whether he knew right from wrong at the time of his alleged actions, and whether he is competent to stand trial.

Some experts say Hasan may resist any insanity defense due to his medical training and his desire to be seen as motivated by his faith, according to the in-depth report by Lee Hancock of the Dallas Morning News.

Hasan faces the death penalty in the shooting deaths of 13 people at Fort Hood. His Article 32 evidentiary hearing is set to begin Tuesday.

Military suicides skyrocketing

Meanwhile, in the wake of last November's massacre, stressful conditions continue unabated at sprawling Ford Hood in Texas. So far this year there have been 20 suspected suicides, out of at least 125 in the Army overall, according to a report in today's New York Times. The record level of mental breakdown among U.S. soldiers is being attributed to the longevity of combat deployment. Also, after nine years of war, the military is accepting less stable individuals and is increasingly short on qualified mental health personnel.

Critics say that even when service members are identified as severely depressed, they are often just prescribed medication rather than given meaningful help.

Today's New York Times article on military suicides is HERE.

Hat tip: Ken Pope

Science often disbelieved, study finds

How many times have you found yourself in court, being challenged on basic information that is virtually undisputed and noncontroversial among scientists? As it turns out, no matter how knowledgeable you are, or how great your credentials, judges or jurors may disbelieve the scientific evidence you are presenting if it does not match their social values.

That's no big surprise, given decades of social psychology research into cognitive dissonance. But a study funded by the National Science Foundation and scheduled for publication in the Journal of Risk Research sheds new light on why "scientific consensus" fails to persuade.

Study participants were much more likely to see a scientist with elite credentials as an "expert" on such culturally contested issues as global warming, gun control, and the risks of nuclear waste disposal if the expert's position matched the participant's own political leanings.

"These are all matters on which the National Academy of Sciences has issued 'expert consensus' reports," said lead author Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale University. "Using the reports as a benchmark, no cultural group in our study was more likely than any other to be 'getting it right,' i.e., correctly identifying scientific consensus on these issues. They were all just as likely to report that 'most' scientists favor the position rejected by the National Academy of Sciences expert consensus report if the report reached a conclusion contrary to their own cultural predispositions."

The findings suggest that mere education alone will not increase people's willingness to accept scientific consensus as accurate, said co-author Donald Braman, a law professor at George Washington University. "To make sure people form unbiased perceptions of what scientists are discovering, it is necessary to use communication strategies that reduce the likelihood that citizens of diverse values will find scientific findings threatening to their cultural commitments."

Information sources more atomized

Unfortunately, trends in public consumption of news may make this task increasingly difficult. Although people are spending at least as much time as ever on the news, they are less likely to read the daily newspaper and more likely to get their information from television and online sources including, most recently, their telephones, according to an informative new survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. This decreases our common knowledge base and makes it easier for ideologically slanted information sources to influence public opinion.

Indeed, the Pew researchers found ideology inextricably linked with people's choices of news sources. For example, here in the United States, Republicans, conservatives, and so-called "Tea Party" enthusiasts were much more likely than the general public to watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh. In contrast, the researchers found, supporters of gay rights make up large shares of regular readers of the New York Times and listeners at National Public Radio.

In an interesting analysis of the mainstreaming of extremism, alternative journalist Arun Gupta points out the ease with which political pundits for whom facts are irrelevant can indoctrinate the uninformed. A respondent committed to rational scientific inquiry becomes like a dog chasing its tail: In the time it takes to deconstruct one fraudulent news story, the pundits have concocted five more.

Top myths of popular psychology

For a great myth-busting tool, I recommend Scott Lilienfeld's latest, 50 great Myths of Popular Psychology. Lilienfeld and co-authors Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio, and the late Barry Beyerstein provide dozens of examples of entrenched popular beliefs that have been debunked by high-quality research, many relevant to forensic practice. A few examples:

• Human memory works like a tape recorder or video camera, and accurately records the events we have experienced

• Abstinence is the only effective treatment for problem drinking

• Criminal profiling helps solve crimes
  

(You'll remember that last one from my most recent post.)

Given the public's increasingly atomized sources of information, it behooves us to be knowledgeable about both ideological influences and common myths. What an expert witness might naively regard as established science may, after all, be subject to disbelief.

A blogger responds:

"Science, Believing Is Believing," Scott H. Greenfield, Esq. at Simple Justice

The featured research:

• "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," by Dan M. Kahan, Hank Jenkins-Smith and Donald Braman, forthcoming in the Journal of Risk Research.

• Ideological news sources: Who watches and why, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, September 12, 2010, full report available online and highly recommended
  

Report: Sexual abuse rampant in U.S. prisons

I will never forget "Sean," a young man I treated in prison. When he first arrived after a minor theft conviction, the 19-year-old was assigned a cell with an older convict who saw him as fresh meat. When Sean reported being raped, he was moved to a segregation housing unit for safety. Solitary housing was like torture for this active young man. After months without stimulation, he tried to hang himself. He was punished by being transferred to a harsher prison.

Sean came to mind when I saw the report released today from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reporting epidemic levels of sexual abuse of prisoners across the United States. At least 88,500 prison and jail inmates were abused last year, many repeatedly. Several facts in the report, mandatory under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, are worth highlighting:

• Guards commit much of the abuse
• Women prisoners are more at risk from other prisoners, while men are most at risk from guards
• Gay, transgender, and effeminate prisoners are at heightened risk, as are prisoners with histories of sexual abuse
• Much of the abuse happens on the first day
  

Graphics credit: Just Detention International

The news comes as no surprise to the folks at Just Detention International, an organization dedicated to ending sexual abuse behind bars. They receive dozens of letters a week from prisoners who are being sexually abused.

• William in Texas wrote that he would misbehave to get locked in the hole just to get away from the guard who was sexually abusing him. He has tried to kill himself, and fears telling his longtime girlfriend.

• James, a gay prisoner in Michigan, has been raped more than 20 times by numerous prisoners. "Do you know what it's like to see their faces each day? Seeing the look they give me? Knowing that they smile and laugh,” he wrote.

A call for research and action by psychology

Just ahead of the report's release, two psychologists published an article in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law calling for more attention to the problem. "To date, psychology has been largely silent on the issue of prison rape," wrote Tess Neal and Carl Clements of the University of Alabama.

In their article, "Prison Rape and Psychological Sequelae: A Call for Research," Neal and Clements call for research into the "rape subculture" that makes sexual victimization more prevalent in American prisons than elsewhere in the world:

It appears that prison rape in the United States is a much more serious problem than it is in other countries. This fact calls for comparative analysis of systems to look for correlates of victimization rates. What is it about the U.S. prison system that exacerbates the problem of prison rape? Some would argue that inordinately high incarceration rates, and policies that capture more persons with mental disorders is part of the systemic problem. Can these conditions be reversed?

They go on to discuss the "serious and long-lasting" effects of prison rape, "with potentially devastating physiological, social, and psychological components":

Many rapes are violent, bloody, and physically traumatic to victims. Gang rapes are often characterized by extreme abuse and may be particularly traumatic. In addition, the threat and reality of contracting HIV/AIDS has added a new dimension of physical and psychological terror for victims. Loss of social status in the prison facility, labeling, stigmatization, and further victimization are other potential consequences for victims…. The postrape symptoms of prison rape survivors may be even more complex and pervasive than those of other types of sexual assaults based on the fact that many victims are repeatedly assaulted, experience negative social reactions from the prison community, including many staff, and may be perceived as homosexual. The humiliation and perceived loss of one's masculinity, as well as the extensive victim blaming found in prisons could perpetuate the negative psychological effects, possibly increasing the risk of developing PTSD.

The role of expert witnesses

Under the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court case of Farmer v. Brennan, prison administrations are liable when they practice "deliberate indifference" to prison rape. Neal and Clements discuss how expert psychological testimony may be useful in such civil litigation, the authors explain, both to explain the psychological sequelae experienced by prisoners and to discuss the environments that foster prison rape. Further research is also needed into the legal atmosphere surrounding such litigation, they note:

Courtroom dynamics in these atypical cases (e.g., when a male prison rape survivor is a plaintiff filing suit against prison officials) need to be examined. Public biases should be identified so that they can be countered with informative testimony to dispel them. Investigations using the diagnosis of PTSD in these circumstances should be initiated to learn more about how jurors respond to the traumatic aspects of prison rape victimization. As research uncovers more accurate descriptions of the psychological sequelae of such victimization, researchers should examine how jurors respond to these new descriptions in a courtroom setting

The full report by BJS statisticians Allen J. Beck and Paige M Harrison is HERE; selected highlights and a press release are HERE. Correspondence concerning the Psychology, Public Policy, and Law should go to Tess Neal of the University of Alabama.

Related blog posts:

• Prison pipeline for transgender youth (March 26, 2008)
• Researching prison rape (Aug. 10, 2009)
• Reports of sexual assault in prison implicate guards (Aug. 18, 2007)

New York Times covers psychopathy debacle

I had no idea when I broke the news of this censorship controversy that it would generate so much mainstream attention. First Science ran with it, and today it's made the New York Times; I am told other major U.S. and international news outlets have made inquiries. I hope this affair will serve as a dramatic lesson to others who might think about making legal threats when someone criticizes their work. The move certainly backfired against psychopathy guru Robert Hare.

Certain theories have weightier real-world implications than others. When a capital case defendant is labeled a "psychopath" in court, it can literally mean the difference between life and death. Similarly, the pejorative label has serious consequences for someone facing lifelong civil detention as a sexual predator. Thus, critical analysis of the reliability and validity of the underlying theory is essential. Researchers whose work lends itself to partisan forensic application should expect scrutiny.

Here's what Benedict Carey, health beat reporter at the New York Times, had to say:

Academic disputes usually flare out in the safety of obscure journals, raising no more than a few tempers, if not voices. But a paper published this week by the American Psychological Association has managed to raise questions of censorship, academic fraud, fair play and criminal sentencing -- and all them well before the report ever became public.

The paper is a critique of a rating scale that is widely used in criminal courts to determine whether a person is a psychopath and likely to commit acts of violence. It was accepted for publication in a psychological journal in 2007, but the inventor of the rating scale saw a draft and threatened a lawsuit if it was published, setting in motion a stultifying series of reviews, revisions and legal correspondence.

"This has been a really, really troubling process from the beginning," said Scott O. Lilienfeld, a psychologist at Emory University and a collaborator with one of the paper's authors. "It has people wondering, 'Do I have to worry every time I publish a paper that criticizes someone that I’ll get slapped with a lawsuit?' " The delay in publication, he said, "sets a very dangerous precedent" and censors scientific discourse….

Dr. Hare's clinical scale, called the Psychopathy Checklist, Revised, is one of the few, if not the only, psychological measures in forensic science with any scientific backing…. Dr. Skeem and Dr. Cooke warned in their paper that the checklist was increasingly being mistaken for a complete definition of psychopathy -- a broader personality construct that includes deceitfulness, impulsivity and recklessness, though not always aggression or illegal acts. The authors contended that Dr. Hare's checklist warps that concept by making criminal behavior a more central component than it really is…. {NOTE: The New York Times later issued a correction of the above portion that is in red; clearly, it's wrong to call the PCL "one of the few, if not the only," forensic psychology measures with any scientific backing!}

"When we first wrote the paper," [Jennifer Skeem] said, "we saw it simply as a call to the field to recognize we were going down a path where we were equating an abstract concept with a checklist, and it was preventing us from looking at the concept more closely."

Carey's full article is HERE. I will be sure to keep readers posted on any further developments.

POSTSCRIPT

This evening, readers alerted me that Robert Hare has posted a lengthy response giving his side of the controversy. His essay, "On Fairness in Academic Debate: A Commentary on Poythress and Petrila (2010) and Related Matters," claims that Poythress and Petrila's critical opinion piece in the International Journal of Forensic Mental Health (see my May 30 blog post) was biased and one-sided. He presents a timeline of the events surrounding the lengthy delay in publishing the underlying psychopathy article by Skeem and Cooke in Psychological Assessment, and gives specific examples of their allegedly egregious misrepresentations of his work. He comments:

… Poythress and Petrila and Hart failed to give an impartial and complete account of the situation. Their actions resulted in publication and circulation of a seriously biased account of events, and a commentary in the June 11 issue of Science, which noted that there are several sides to every issue…. I have no arguments with their thoughtful and commendable views about the nature of scientific debate and peer review, and about the potential fallout from threats of litigation…. I would welcome a formal investigation of the entire matter by an appropriately impartial body. I also would be willing to engage in open debate with the parties involved…. Contrary to the characterizations of others, I made extensive efforts to use the academic system in this case, but [the Skeem and Cooke] article went beyond the boundary of fair academic debate and criticism. The nature of the issue and the authors' refusal to correct their egregious statements gave me no reasonable alternative….

Would I do it again, given similar circumstances? Perhaps not, for like a whistle-blower the focus soon turns to the person who made the complaint and not on the issues and events that led to the complaint. Further, many in the scientific community believe that there are no grounds for litigation concerning academic works, no matter what the circumstances. I’ve learned from this experience that not all academics and scientists play by the accepted rules of science, and that legal redress for those claiming injustice is frowned upon by many as rocking the academic/scientific boat, however leaky it may be; a professional Catch-22 that serves to deny academics the legal rights enjoyed by the rest of the population.

His full statement is HERE. Again, I encourage readers interested in this subject to read Skeem and Cooke's Psychological Assessment article, rebuttal, and surrebuttal and form your own opinions.

New study: Children of lesbians more competent

The growing acceptance of same-sex marriage -- now legal in 8 countries, 5 U.S. states, and among the Coquille Indians in Oregon -- demonstrates the rapid social and legal progress of lesbians and gay men. Yet a handful of expert witnesses are still testifying in court that sexual minority parents put children at risk for bad outcomes.

Experts must rely on science. So these antigay experts cite biased research and make strained inferences from supposed empirical evidence of higher rates of psychiatric problems, substance abuse, and relationship instability among sexual minorities as a group. Of course, it's apples and oranges, because those studies are not of parents. These self-described experts only get away with such testimony due to societal prejudice; imagine a scientist testifying for a ban on adoption by Native Hawaiians due to their relatively higher rates of illegal drug use than Asians as a group.

But a new study in the journal Pediatrics blows this sham pseudoscience out of the water. The first prospective, longitudinal study of planned lesbian families found that by adolescence the sons and daughters of lesbians had better psychological adjustment across the board than their demographically matched counterparts from a large normative sample of American youth.

At age 17, both boys and girls were rated significantly higher in social, academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggression, and externalizing behavioral problems.

Interestingly, although more than half of the co-parent couples separated during the time period of the study, this did not affect their children's psychological health. That finding contrasts with the negative impact of divorce on children in heterosexual families. The researchers theorize it may be due to the nature of shared child-rearing among separted lesbian mothers.

The authors theorize that one factor in the relatively superior adjustment of these children is that their parents use less corporal punishment and authoritarian power assertion than do heterosexual fathers:

Growing up in households with less power assertion and more parental involvement has been shown to be associated with healthier psychological adjustment. Also, adolescent boys who are close to their parents are less likely to engage in delinquent behavior.

The study followed 154 prospective mothers who volunteered beginning in 1986 to be followed from their children's conception to adulthood. Because of its prospective nature, findings were not skewed by overrepresentation of families who volunteered once their offspring were doing well. Although the sample was non-random, this was offset by a remarkably high retention rate of 93 percent. The study is ongoing.

These and related findings have significant implications for child custody and adoption cases in which experts testify that the sexuality of the parents is relevant under the "best interest of the child" standard. Respected child custody expert Jonathan Gould and his colleagues have argued that parental sexual orientation is irrelevant to this issue. Forensic psychologist William O'Donohue disagrees. But now, an expert who does raise parental sexuality as a potential negative can expect to be confronted with mounting evidence that -- far from being a liability -- having lesbian parents may actually confer some advantages to children.

Related resources:

Pediatrics has made the article available for free online (HERE). My article in the Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice summarizing the state of this research as of 2003 is: Practice Opportunities with an Emerging Family Form: The Planned Lesbian and Gay Family (Volume 3, Issue 3, pages 47-64).

Photo credit: Telegraph (UK); Hat tip: Ken Pope

Will antigay expert witness's scandal cause legal fallout?

By now, I expect all of you know about the antigay "expert" caught flouncing around Europe with a cute little "rent boy." Most of the commentary I've seen has focused on George Rekers's audacity and hypocrisy. (My favorite of these is by English professor Christopher Lane, author of the book, Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness, an expose on the inner workings of the American Psychiatric Association, writing over at his Side Effects blog.)

But today's New York Times has the story I've really been curious to see, about the potential legal ramifications. Rekers has been a high-profile expert witness for years, jetting around the country to testify about how gay people are mentally imbalanced and their children troubled. Florida paid him $120,000, for example, to testify in support of a state ban on gay adoptions; he also wrote an expert declaration in California's legal battle over same-sex marriage.

As John Schwartz reports:

[T]he scandal may affect more than Dr. Rekers’s reputation. They say it places obligations on those who have relied on Dr. Rekers to inform the court in at least one continuing case to modify or withdraw their arguments.

"Each lawyer must tell the court if he comes to know that one of his witnesses has given 'false' testimony," said Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at New York University. That could come into play if the expert is discredited, he added….

The practical effect of the Rekers scandal on the legal movement to restrict gay rights is unclear. He is not the only expert espousing such views. Another Arkansas case concerning restrictions on gay adoption is under way, for example, and Dr. Rekers is not part of that case.

The universe of such experts, however, may not be large. In describing Dr. Rekers's selection in the Florida case, [Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican gubernatorial candidate] told reporters last week, "There were only two willing to step forward and testify, and we searched a long time."

The full story is HERE.

Photo credit: Brandon K. Thorp, Miami New Times

Jury rejects Samenow’s lone insanity opinion

During one of my stints as a prison clinician, I had the unfortunate experience of being supervised by a psychologist who believed that prisoners were monsters bent on manipulation, and who thus tried to thwart my attempts to provide treatment. That psychologist's favorite book: Stanton Samenow's Inside the Criminal Mind.

"Criminals think differently" is the basic premise of the well-worn treatise. Samenow rejects out-of-hand most mainstream sociological, environmental, traumatogenic, developmental, biological, and psychological theories of crime, labeling them as absurd, simplistic, or even plain "kooky":

[C]riminals are not mentally ill or hapless victims of oppressive social conditions…. Despite a multitude of differences in their backgrounds and crime patterns, criminals are all alike in one way: how they think…. [A]ll regard the world as a chessboard over which they have total control, and they perceive people as pawns to be pushed around at will…. Some of their most altruistic acts have sinister motives.

Samenow promotes this popular rhetoric on national TV and radio shows such as Good Morning America and the Larry King show. In court, the well-known psychologist has testified for many decades in insanity cases, being called exclusively by the prosecution to attack defendants' claims of insanity. Over time, this one-sidedness started working to defense attorneys' advantage; they were able to rebut his testimony simply by telling juries that Samenow always testified against insanity. (Here is a recent example.)

This month, however, Samenow broke with tradition and for the first time opined in court that a defendant met the legal standard for insanity. He picked a rather unusual case. Unlike most defendants who plead insanity, Evan D. Gargiulo, being prosecuted in Virginia for the shooting death of a cab driver, had no history of psychiatric disorder. The competitive swimmer and former college swim team coach was an engineer for Lockheed Martin and a lieutenant in the National Guard when he shot Mazhar Nazir in the back of the head with his 9 mm pistol.

Gargiulo testified that he shot Nazir in self defense when the Pakistani-born cabbie tried to grab him. He said that after getting a taxi ride home from a nightclub, he realized he had lost his wallet. He went into his apartment, retrieved his gun and car keys, and had Nazir drive him to his car. Once there, he realized he had also lost a roll of cash so could not pay his $130 fare. It was at that point, he claimed, that Nazir became angry and reached over the seat to grab him, making him fear for his safety. The hapless driver died from a single gunshot to the back of his head.

Samenow testified that Gargiulo had led such a sheltered life, and had developed such an exaggerated paranoia, that he could not distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime. As Tom Jackman of the Washington Post reported it:

Samenow said Gargiulo's dismay at being robbed and his "enormous fear" of Nazir caused him to shoot without thinking of the consequences. "I haven't encountered somebody with this level of fear," Samenow said. He said there is no formal definition of Gargiulo's mental condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the accepted reference book for courts trying to parse mental illness and criminal culpability.

Samenow said later that his first appearance for the defense in an insanity case in 40 years showed that he has an open mind after decades of examining mentally ill defendants and finding them criminally responsible. He testified that he was paid $25,000 by the defense, which rested with Samenow as its only witness.

The jury didn't buy either the self defense or insanity defenses. After six hours of deliberations, it convicted Gargiulo of second-degree murder and sentenced him to 15 years in prison. To the disappointment of the victim's family, that was 25 years less than the maximum the jury could have imposed.

Gargiulo photo courtesy Fairfax County (Virginia) Police Department

Asperger's ruling: Judge should have allowed experts

In the latest of several recent forensic cases involving Asperger's, an appellate court has ruled that a judge committed a reversible error in excluding expert evidence on the condition.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned seven counts of arson against a California physicist who with his buddies had vandalized and torched more than 130 vehicles back in 2003.

William "Billy" Cottrell is described in news accounts as a talented young physicist who was diagnosed with Asperger's, a high-functioning form of autism, during his 2004 trial for arson and conspiracy.

In its ruling, the appellate court let stand a conviction for conspiracy. But the court held that aiding and abetting of arson requires a specific intent in that Cottrell must have knowingly participated in the crimes and tried through his actions to make them succeed. Thus, it was reversible error not to allow expert evidence of a mental condition that might have impacted the defendant's subjective judgments.

The defense had proposed a theory in which Asperger's prevented Cottrell from understanding what his friends were up to until it was too late; once he figured it out, he supposedly tried to stop them.

Local mental health professionals quoted in the Pasadena Star-News differed as to whether an Asperger's defense might have succeeded in mitigating Cottrell's culpability.

On the one hand, psychologist Bruce Hirsch said Asperger's could have reduced Cottrell's ability to understand the situation, as people with the condition often cannot tell when they are being lied to.

"What you're really talking about is a social naivete and, yes, people with Asperger's can be very socially naive," Hirsch is quoted as saying. "They are so bound to the truth that the concept of lying doesn't even exist in their mind. Somehow the social reasoning of people with Asperger's is very concrete, very black and white, and they don't get that people tell lies."

On the other hand, marriage and family therapist Amy Keller said the defense theory of Asperger's does not take into account the rigid morality of most Asperger's patients.

"I find that, after working with a lot of Asperger's patients, that they are so stubborn," Keller told the newspaper. "They're not that easily influenced. If anything, they're very clear about right and wrong."

Either way, the appellate reversal will not have a practical import on Cottrell. Prosecutors decided not to retry him, because it would not have impacted his 100-month federal prison term.

Cottrell will soon be taking the bus back to the Arizona federal prison where he teaches physics and cosmology classes to fellow prisoners.

The unpublished opinion in U.S. v. William Cottrell is HERE; the most recent Pasadena Star-News story is HERE.

Hat tip: Ken Pope

Further resources:

• Asperger’s: Here today, gone tomorrow: Would erasure from DSM impact forensic use? (Nov. 3, 2009 blog post)
• The short life of a diagnosis (Nov. 9, 2009 New York Times op-ed by Simon Baron-Cohen)
• Forensic aspects of Asperger's Syndrome, Barry-Walsh, J.B., & Mullen, P.E., Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 2004, Volume 15, pages 96-107.

Wales: Another prime-time automatist

In my last post, I blogged about the Toronto sexual assault case in which a man was acquitted on the grounds that he was asleep. Now, I bring you a second high-profile case of sleep disorder, that of a Welch man acquitted in the killing of his wife because he was dreaming at the time.

Sleep experts for the prosecution and defense agreed that Brian Thomas's behavior was consistent with automatism, meaning at the time he killed his wife, his mind had no control over what his body was doing.

During last week's trial, the jury was instructed that there are two types of automatism: insane automatism and non-insane automatism. Based on which type they chose, Thomas could have either been acquitted or found not guilty by reason of insanity and hospitalized.

But suddenly, in mid-trial, the prosecutor had second thoughts and dropped his effort to obtain an NGI verdict, allowing Thomas to walk free. A prosecution psychiatrist, Dr. Caroline Jacob, had testified that Thomas was not a risk to the public.

Thomas was described as a gentle family man who had been married to his childhood sweetheart for 40 years. He called police to say he had killed his wife because he thought she was an intruder.

Click on above image to see a brief video of Thomas after the acquittal

In an odd coincidence, the Journal of Forensic Sciences had just published an article describing clinical cases with eerie similarity to Thomas's. Carlos Schenck and colleagues at the Minnesota Regional Sleep Disorders Center found about 40 cases in the literature in which people, mainly men, had engaged in complex and violent behaviors while enacting dreams. The authors found a pattern with clear forensic implications, because dream behaviors could be misinterpreted as suicidal or homicidal. That's what happened in Thomas's case: To his family's dismay, he spent 10 months in jail awaiting trial. The actual cause of such behaviors, according to the article, is not malice but Rapid Eye Movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD), in which the normal muscle atonia present during REM sleep is absent, allowing sleepers to physically enact their dreams.

In a strong similarity to Thomas's case, the majority of cases involved choking and headlocks. Thomas had gotten his wife in a headlock and then strangled her.

In another similarity, in about half the cases the patient either had a neurologic disorder or was taking medication for psychiatric disorders. Thomas had just stopped taking antidepressant medication, and the withdrawal was causing nightmares.

What were the other most common behaviors found in the study?

In second place was jumping off the bed. And in third place, with seven cases, came defenestration. That one might have been difficult here, as Thomas and his wife were vacationing in an RV at the time of the killing.

The BBC has further coverage of the case. The abstract of the Journal of Forensic Sciences article, Potentially Lethal Behaviors Associated With Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behavior Disorder: Review of the Literature and Forensic Implications, is HERE.

Texas death case illustrates Atkins quagmire

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia to outlaw the death penalty for mentally retarded defendants has opened up a "welter of uncertainty" in courts around the nation. So-called "Atkins inquiries" into whether a defendant is mentally retarded rely heavily on mental health experts, who may disagree on everything from the definition and identification of mental retardation to whether the specific defendant meets the threshold criteria.

This familiar spectacle of dueling experts takes a particularly ominous turn when experts misstate the science in these high-stakes (literally, life or death) cases. Fact-finders are often ill-equipped to disentangle the highly complex technical and scientific issues pertaining to whether or not a defendant meets the magic cutoff that will spare his life.

Over at his new blog, Intellectual competence and the death penalty, Kevin McGrew critically analyzes the latest case exemplifying these legal pitfalls, especially in the increasingly common situation in which the defendant is from another culture or speaks a language other than English. The case is that of Virgilio Maldonado, out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

McGrew believes this case represents "a miscarriage of justice" that typifies the problems inherent in Atkins inquiries:

"The courts appear ill-equipped to handle the complex psychological measurement issues presented, issues that are, at times, confounded by the inclusion of data from dubious procedures, interpretations of test scores that are not grounded in any solid empirical research, and the deference to a single intelligence battery (the WAIS series) as the 'gold standard' when a more appropriate instrument (or combination of WAIS-III/IV and other measures) might have been administered, but the results of the more appropriate measure are summarily dismissed based on personal opinion (and not sound theory or empirical research)."

Those of you who practice in this area will be interested in McGrew's in-depth dissection of the IQ testing problems when defendants are not proficient in English language. Often, tests are wrongly selected, misadministered and misinterpreted under these circumstances.

In the Maldonado case, the prosecution's psychological expert decided to upwardly adjust the defendant's IQ score to a specific number based on his "clinical judgment" as to cultural and educational factors.

"It’s around the 80s, I guess, if you had to pin me down. Around the 80s; somewhere in there," the psychologist testified.

As McGrew points out:

"Adjusting obtained IQ scores, either up or down, … in the absence of any scientifically established procedure … is troubling and is not consistent with accepted psychological assessment practices or standards."

McGrew also critiques courts' frequent practice of putting the WAIS tests on a pedestal as the "gold standard," to the point of dismissing Spanish-language tests that are normed on relevant Spanish-speaking populations.

McGrew's in-depth analysis is HERE. The 144-page Maldonado decision is online HERE.

Rare chance to view dueling experts live

Accused coach killer's Iowa competency hearing

Courtesy of the Des Moines Register, we have a rare opportunity to watch two experienced mental health experts testify in court about competency to stand trial. The experts were the featured event in this week's highly publicized hearing for Marc Becker, the mentally disturbed man accused of gunning down esteemed Iowa football coach Ed Thomas in front of about 20 students this past June.
















Click on either image above to watch that expert's testimony. Dr. Michael Taylor's video (left) is about 79 minutes, the first 15 minutes of which are the testimony of a psychiatric nurse at the jail (manually move the time bar to 15 to start with Taylor). Dr. Dan Roger's video (right) lasts about 57 minutes.

The experts agreed that Becker is most likely schizophrenic. They differed vastly, however, on whether he evidenced symptoms of psychosis.

Testifying for the prosecution on Thursday, psychiatrist Michael Taylor said he found no evidence whatsoever of current psychotic symptoms. Dr. Taylor described the defendant as "a calm, relaxed, pleasant young man, well spoken, articulate, able to communicate clearly, able to joke."

"There's absolutely no hint in Mr. Becker's appearance or behavior that would raise any suspicion of any psychiatric disorder," Taylor testified.

On the other side of the aisle, defense-retained psychologist Dan Rogers described the defendant as "floridly psychotic," paranoid, and delusional. "He starts with a perfectly good thought and it just becomes filled with illogical concepts as he tries to proceed," he testified.

While the public may see this as an example of hired guns who will say whatever they are hired to say, an alternate possibility is that Becker presented differently to the two experts. Dr. Rogers evaluated Becker on two occasions, 32 days and 45 days after the offense. Dr. Taylor did not evaluate Becker until more than two months after the crime. By that time, Becker was being medicated with a high dosage of the antipsychotic Invega.

Becker appeared highly sedated in court, raising another competency issue: If his medication dosage is lowered so that he can stay awake in court, his psychosis will worsen, Dr. Rogers predicted.

Of note in this case is the informative, factually accurate coverage being provided by Jennifer Jacobs of the Des Moines Register. In Thursday's article, she quoted the illustrious Daniel Murrie of the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, talking about how uncommon incompetency findings are (only an estimated 20% of cases in which the issue is raised).

In her previous story, Ms. Jacobs quoted competency guru Thomas Grisso (of Evaluating Competencies fame) and cited recent empirical research on incompetency findings:

"Each year, about 7,000 defendants nationwide are involuntarily committed to public psychiatric hospitals for treatment intended to make them well enough to stand trial, according to a 2008 report in the American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry. About 78 percent are released in less than three months, according to a 2003 report by the Missouri Institute of Mental Health. Another 20 percent are released between three months and 12 months after committal, and 2 percent are released after 12 months."

After hearing from the two experts, Judge Stephen P. Carroll put the case against Becker on hold while he contemplates his competency ruling.

Hat tip: Luis Rosell

Mitchell slated for epic competency hearing

In what is shaping up as one of the longest and most intricate competency hearings in history, Brian David Mitchell has finally been slated for a hearing in late November that is expected to last 10 days.

Mitchell, you will recall, is accused of kidnapping Elizabeth Smart of Utah back in 2002. A self-proclaimed prophet, he allegedly planned to make her one of his wives. (Unlike Jaycee Lee Dugard, who was held hostage for 18 years and bore two children with her abductor, Ms. Smart was held captive for only nine months and reportedly readjusted well.) Wanda Eileen Barzee, Mitchell's estranged wife and codefendant, was found incompetent about five years ago and has been at the Utah State Hospital ever since; no date has been set for her competency hearing.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys are sparring over who will testify at the upcoming hearing.

The prosecution submitted a list of 39 witnesses. It included expert witnesses, police officers, and staff members at the Utah State Hospital, as well as "former friends, acquaintances, co-workers, ecclesiastical leaders and family members," according to a story in the Deseret (Utah) News.

Defense attorneys contend that many of these witnesses should be excluded because they do not have any information about Mitchell’s current state of mind. The relevant time frames in a competency determination are the present and short-term future, not the distant past.

Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist from New York City, is expected to be the star witness for the prosecution.

Welner is a renowned expert who has testified in a number of high-profile criminal cases. An associate professor at NYU School of Medicine and an adjunct professor at Duquesne University Law School in Pennsylvania, in 1996 he founded a monthly periodical, the Forensic Echo. Two years later, he founded what is billed as the first forensic peer-review consultation practice, The Forensic Panel. In a procedure designed to minimize examiner bias, panel members must expose their work to the scrutiny of peers to minimize examiner bias. One of his more controversial creations is the "Depravity Scale," which attempts to quantify evil. Welner is also a frequent media commentator.

In his "voluminous" report, Welner reportedly opines that Mitchell may meet criteria for narcissistic personality disorder or other personality disorders. Typically, as opposed to severe psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, the personality disorders are not deemed severe enough to make a person incompetent to stand trial.

For further reading, I highly recommend Judge Judith Atherton's 2005 competency opinion in the case, a thoughtful analysis of competency as it pertains to religiosity. Evaluations by esteemed forensic psychologists Jennifer Skeem and Stephen Golding and psychiatrist Noel Gardner are discussed. I have made it available HERE.

Related resources:Deseret News: Mitchell attorneys want fewer witnesses

The Recurrence of an Illusion: The Concept of "Evil" in Forensic Psychiatry, by James L. Knoll, IV (critical commentary on Dr. Welner's Depravity Scale)

Top confession expert barred from testifying

Over the past few decades, police have developed a set of sophisticated procedures to get suspects to confess to crimes. Most suspects who succumb to the so-called "Reid" tactics of manipulation and deception are actually guilty. But some minority -- the exact proportion is unknown -- are not.

How can judges and jurors tell the difference?

The short answer is, they generally cannot. False confessions can look amazingly real. In the Central Park jogger case, for example, juveniles who falsely confessed to gang-raping a woman energetically demonstrated their (false) actions on videotape. Five juveniles were convicted on the basis of the false videotaped confessions, despite no physical evidence linking them to the crime. It wasn't until years later that the true culprit (a lone sexual predator) was identified.

To jurors, judges, police, and other members of the public, confession evidence is overwhelmingly powerful evidence of guilt. After all, it goes against common sense to think that someone would confess to a crime he did not commit.

Luckily, researchers have laboriously combed through confessions that later turned out to be false, and have found markers of unreliability. Among the markers are lengthy and intense interrogations, "contamination" through police feeding of crime facts to suspects, and a lack of guilty knowledge on the part of the suspect. Certain individual factors (such as youth, low intelligence, naivete, and acquiescence to authority) also put some suspects at heightened risk.

A leading expert in this area is Richard Leo, a law professor at the University of San Francisco and author of Police Interrogation and American Justice. Because laypeople lack the expertise to tease out telltale markers of unreliability, Leo has educated jurors and judges about this science.

That is just what he was slated to do in the Michigan case of Jerome Kowalski, who confessed on videotape to the 2008 shooting deaths of his brother and sister-in-law. Leo was prepared to testify about how Kowalski might have come to believe he committed the crime despite having no recollection of it.

Typically, expert witnesses are allowed to testify when they can provide information that is beyond the common knowledge of jurors, and will assist such "fact-finders" in arriving at the truth. Leo believed his testimony could "be important at trial to help the jury understand police interrogation methods and 'how some methods can lead to a false confession,' " according to a report in today's Livingston Daily Press and Argus.

But, in a ruling that shocked the defense attorneys and has created some hubbub among forensic psychologists around the country, a judge barred both Leo and a clinical psychologist from testifying, saying jurors can use their common sense to determine whether the confession is valid.

"We have no defense at this point," attorney Walter Piszczatowski told a newspaper reporter after the hearing. He asked Judge Theresa Brennan to put the case on hold while he appeals, but she denied that request too. The trial is set to start in October.

Further resources:

" 'I'd know a false confession if I saw one': A comparative study of college students and police investigators," by Saul M. Kassin, Christian A. Meissner, and Rebecca J. Norwick, Law & Human Behavior (2005).

Livingston Daily Press and Argus coverage of this case is HERE.
My review of Leo's Police Interrogation and American Justice is HERE.
A related blog post, "Canada: How false confessions occur," is HERE.

A book with chapters by psychologists Sol Fulero and Bruce Frumkin on the admissibility of this type of confession testimony is expected out later this year from the American Psychological Association press. The book, Interrogations and confessions: Research, practice, and policy, is being edited by Christian Meissner and G. Daniel Lassiter, both of whom have extensive expertise in this field.