Forensnips aplenty, forensnips galore

Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes, Everybody knows

I can't seem to get Leonard Cohen’s haunting Everybody Knows out of my mind.

Perhaps it's because I was just down in Alabama, the belly of the beast, working on a tragic case. With the highest per capita rate of executions in the United States, the Heart of Dixie State kills people for crimes that other nations punish with probation. No exaggeration. It was jarring to drive around  Montomery and see the close proximity of historic mansions to abandoned homes and decaying housing projects. The juxtaposition is fitting, as Montgomery claims the dual distinctions of being the "cradle of the Confederacy" and the "birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement."  

Montgomery, Alabama (c) Karen Franklin 2013

Or maybe it's a flashback to Elysium, in which the one percenters have left Earth’s teeming masses to rot away while they luxuriate on an idyllic orbiting satellite. The scene in the parole office, with a robot parole agent delivering a quick risk assessment and then pushing meds, is worth the price of admission, although the film is marred by interminable hand-to-hand combat scenes and a ridiculous Hollywood ending.

David Miranda, held hostage
by British security forces

Or, it could be because I’m still riled up over the British government's abuse of David Miranda. He is the Brazilian partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald (think Edward Snowden). In what can only be called an outrageous effort to intimidate journalists, the Brits detained Miranda at Heathrow Airport for nine solid hours -- the maximum allowed under the British Terrorism Act -- before finally releasing him sans his laptop, cell phone and camera. Under the Terrorism Act, he was not entitled to counsel, nor to decline to cooperate. I sure hope it backfires and incenses journalists; it certainly fired up USA Today columnist Rem Rieder (whose column I highly recommend).

* * * * *

I feel bad about the dearth of posts recently. It's been a hectic period. I'll try to make up for my lapse by packing this post with lots of links to forensic psychology and criminology news and views from the past few weeks:

Evidence-based justice: Corrupted memory

Nature magazine's profile of Elizabeth Loftus and her decades-long crusade to expose flaws in eyewitness testimony is worth a gander.

Psychopathic criminals have empathy switch

New research published in the journal Brain indicates that psychopaths do not lack empathy, as is often claimed. Rather, they can switch it on and off at will. The study, out of the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, is freely available online. BBC also has coverage.  

The demographics of sexting

Sexting is becoming increasingly commonplace. But practices and meanings differ by gender, relationship and sexual identity, according to a new article, also available online, in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.

Brainwashed video discussion

New York Times columnist David Brooks just interviewed psychiatrist Sally Satel and psychologist Scott Lilenfield about their new book, Brainwashed, which is getting quite a bit of media buzz. The book is a workmanlike, if a bit superficial, exploration of the allure of "mindless neuroscience." If you’ve got 65 minutes, I recommend watching the video discussion.

Prison news: Hunger strike, juveniles, the elderly, women

On the prison front, a lot has been going on. California prisoners are into Day 50 or so of their hunger strike over solitary housing (a condition that the Department of Corrections denies, despite many men being kept in segregation units for years and even decades) and other cruel conditions. With prisoners' health deteriorating, a court order has been issued allowing force feeding if necessary to forestall deaths. Mainstream media reporting has been minimal, but at least Al Jazeera's got you covered.  

Even more local to me, a lawsuit has been filed over solitary confinement of juveniles in Contra Costa County. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, accuses county officials of flouting state laws mandating that juvenile detention facilities be supportive environments designed for rehabilitation.

Meanwhile, NBC news is sounding an alarm over the increasing number of elderly people in U.S. prisons. NBC sounds mostly worried about the cost to taxpayers of prisons teeming with upwards of 400,000 elderly prisoners by the year 2030. Read ithttp://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/29/.UeV62HppQL8.twitter, and weep. 

Piper Kerman, author of the memoir Orange Is the New Black that's become a trendy Netflix series, is also sounding an alarm. In a New York Times op-ed, she writes about a federal plan to ease overcrowding in men's prisons by shipping about 1,000 women from Connecticut down to Alabama and points beyond, where they will be even more estranged from their families. As Kerman notes: "For many families these new locations might as well be the moon." I recommend her thoughtful essay on alternatives for low-risk women prisoners. 

In a more promising development, the U.S. Justice Department has announced efforts to curtail the stiff drug sentences that have caused much of this overcrowding in the first place. The U.S. prison system is so bloated, so costly, and so irrational, that even conservatives are calling for reform. Better late than never, I suppose.

By the way, Florida has executed John Errol Ferguson, the prisoner whose controversial case I blogged about earlier this year, whose competency was contested in part because of his insistence that he was the "Prince of God." The American Bar Association had filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the standard for competency for execution being applied in the case. 

Sex offender news

In yet another in a series of registry-facilitated vigilante attacks, a South Carolina man has been arrested for killing a sex offender and his wife in the mistaken belief that the man was a child molester. At the same time, there are signs that overzealous laws that contribute to such stigmatization are being scrutinized more closely. For example, a federal judge has struck down a Colorado city's ordinance restricting where registered sex offenders can live, ruling that it conflicts with a state law requiring parolees to be reintegrated into society. An appellate panel in North Carolina has also struck down a law that banned registered sex offenders from using social media sites. The state Court of Appeals agreed with the challenger that the law violated his Constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of association. 

Dispute over expert witness credentials

Finally, there's a big brouhaha in South Dakota over the credentials of a psychologist who frequently testifies as an expert witness in child custody cases. The credentials of the widely respected psychologist, Thomas Price, became an issue during a child custody dispute. It was ascertained that he had earned his PhD in behavioral medicine from an online degree mill called Greenwich University on Norfolk Island, Australia, that was subsequently shuttered by the Australian government. According to an expert on diploma mills quoted by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, degree mills often adopt the names of respected English universities. Price's resumé says he earned a Ph.D. in behavioral medicine from Greenwich University, without noting the Norfolk Island location. "Typically," notes the article, "people don’t get caught using an unaccredited degree until they assume a high-profile position ... or they do something that causes another person to research their backgrounds…. If you stay under the radar, you can get by."

Science blogger

Finally (this time I really mean it), for those of you who are into offbeat science, I've just added a new blog, Mike the Mad Biologist, to my blog roll (which can be found a little ways down the right column of my blog site). Mike is prolific and wide-ranging in his news links, with a creative spin. 

Hat tips to Jane, Terry, Kirk and others

Deaths at Minnesota detention site bringing public scrutiny

State legislator calls SVP practices Unconstitutional 

Two back-to-back deaths at Minnesota's draconian Moose Lake facility have prompted new calls for reform of the United States' largest per capita preventive detention apparatus. More than 600 men are being indefinitely warehoused behind razor wire at Moose Lake, after having served prison terms for sexual offending. Only one has ever been released.

Yesterday, a state legislator publicly decried the state's current civil detention practices as Unconstitutional, in an interview on Minnesota Public Radio.

LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW (7 MINUTES)

"Minnesota just can't continue to … lock people up with no hope of release. It isn't Constitutional, and I think there's wide recognition of that fact," said Rep. Tina Liebling, who is leading reform efforts.

Moose Lake

In the wake of a federal class-action lawsuit by detainees, a federal task force recommended a number of changes to the program. But the state legislature is balking at implementing changes, which could include setting up alternative placement facilities and wrestling some power away from the Moose Lake treatment bureaucracy by giving the courts more discretion and mandating bi-annual case reviews by independent forensic experts.

Liebling said that out of the 20 U.S. states with laws allowing civil incapacitation of dangerous sex offenders after they have completed their prison terms, no other state has a "one-size-fits-all" procedure that doesn't allow for any hope of release.

"We can't hold people for their entire lives because we are worried about what they might do in the future," she told reporter Cathy Wurzer. "Unless we're prepared to lock up everybody who might pose any kind of risk … we need to get better at dealing with people as individuals … [and not solely based on] what they did 10 or 15 or 20 years ago."

Liebling expressed optimism about increasing public interest and knowledge stemming from the class-action lawsuit and recent deaths, which included one suicide and one of unexplained causes. "This is definitely something the public needs to be aware of…. People need to know that there are sex offenders living among us, and most of them are doing so successfully."

* * * * *

Related blog posts: 

"Most civilly detained sex offenders would not reoffend, study finds: Other new research finds further flaws with actuarial methods in forensic practice" (July 18, 2013) 

Blogger urges new paradigm for sex offenders (Feb. 23, 2012)

Challenge to Minnesota commitment gains ground (Sept. 23, 2012)

Cluelessness, complacency and the great unknown

The case of the self-blind psychologist

An experienced forensic psychologist -- let's call him Dr. Short -- applies for a job as a forensic evaluator. He is rejected based on his written work sample. He files a formal protest, insisting that the report was fine.

As you all know, forensic reports should be (in the words of an excellent trainer I once had) both "fact-based" and "fact-limited." In other words, we must (a) carefully explain the data that support our opinion, and (b) exclude irrelevant information, especially that which is intrusive or prejudicial.[1]

Dr. Short's report was neither fact-based nor fact-limited. The adduced evidence did not support his forensic opinions, and the report was littered with extraneous material insinuating bad moral character. We learned of the subject's unorthodox sexual tastes and former gang associations, neither of which were relevant to the very limited forensic issue at hand. Using ethnic terms to describe the subject's hair, Dr. Short inadvertently revealed more about his biases than about the subject.

Obviously, based on his vehement insistence that his report was fine, Dr. Short was blind to these deficiencies. Which got me to thinking: Since biases are largely unconscious, can people be made aware of them? Can blind spots be overcome? How can we come to understand what we do not know?

"The anosognosia of everyday life"

Pondering these questions in connection with one of my seminars at Bond University, I stumbled across some intriguing philosophical discourse on the various types of unknowns, and how to remedy them:

The simplest type of unknown has been labeled a "known unknown." This is something we don't know, and know we don't know. Let’s say you learn that someone you are evaluating in a sanity proceeding had ingested an obscure substance just before the crime. If you don’t know the substance’s potential effects, the solution is straightforward (assuming you are motivated): Do the research.

In some cases, we know the question, but no answer exists. For example, we know that six out of ten individuals who score as high risk on actuarial instruments will not reoffend violently, due to the base rates of violence. What we don’t know is how to distinguish the true from false positives. So that’s a known unknown with an unknown answer. But if we are at least aware of the issue, we can explain the field’s empirical knowledge gap in our reports.

However, unknown unknowns [2] are an entirely different kettle of fish. These are things we don't know and don't realize that we don't know. We don't know that there even IS a question that needs to be asked. Without being able to frame the question, we obviously cannot figure out an answer. Put simply: We are clueless.

Unknown unknowns are a major problem in forensic psychology, with its dearth of racial, ethnic and cultural diversity among researchers and practitioners.[3] Vast experiential divides lead evaluators to impose their own moral standards without even realizing they are doing so. In condemning his subject's sexual promiscuity and drug use, for example, Dr. Short made false and universalizing assumptions that revealed ignorance of lifestyles other than his own. (This reminded me of an African American prisoner’s dilemma interacting with white guards in remote, rural prisons; because the farming communities from which these guards were recruited are devoid of mainstream African Americans, the guards tended to assume that all Black people had the characteristics of Black convicts.)

"The anosognosia of everyday life" is the rather gloomy term coined by David Dunning of Cornell University, who specializes in decision-making processes, to describe such routine ignorance.[4] Dunning is a great believer in ignorance as a driving force that shapes our lives in ways in which we will never know. 

"Put simply, people tend to do what they know and fail to do that which they have no conception of. In that way, ignorance profoundly channels the course we take in life."

Apropos of Dr. Short's report, Dunning notes that cluelessness on the part of a so-called expert does not imply dishonesty or a lack of caring:

"People can be clueless in a million different ways, even though they are largely trying to get things right in an honest way. Deficits in knowledge, or in information the world is giving them, leads people toward false beliefs and holes in their expertise."

Laziness a major culprit

Unknown unknowns are not unfathomable mysteries that can never be solved. They are caused by laziness and complacency, which block the process of discovery as surely as a dam holds back water. It’s what German cognitive scientist Dietrich Dorner was talking about when he wrote, in The Logic of Failure, that “to the ignorant, the world looks simple.”[5] We’ve all known people who are incompetent, but whose very incompetence masks their ability to recognize their incompetence. There’s even an unwieldy term for this condition (named after the researchers who studied it, naturally): Just call it the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Quoting Dunning yet again: 

"Unknown unknown solutions haunt the mediocre without their knowledge. The average detective does not realize the clues he or she neglects. The mediocre doctor is not aware of the diagnostic possibilities or treatments never considered. The run-of-the-mill lawyer fails to recognize the winning legal argument that is out there. People fail to reach their potential as professionals, lovers, parents and people simply because they are not aware of the possible."

Before leaving the topic of the great unknowns, I must mention one final type of unknown, an especially pernicious one in forensic work. Unknown knowns, which undoubtedly beset Dr. Short, are unconscious beliefs and prejudices that guide one’s perceptions and interactions. Perhaps the 19th century humorist Josh Billings captured the quality of these unknowns the best when he wryly observed:

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you think you know that just ain't so." [6]

Tackling the great unknown

So, is there any hope for our wayward Dr. Short, oblivious to his biases and blind spots? The answer, as in many facets of life, is: It depends. One of the most elementary lessons one learns as a novice psychologist is that people don’t change unless they are motivated to change. (Hence, a whole area of psychology devoted to enhancing motivation to change, through so-called “motivational interviewing.”) Effective change is rarely compelled. If Dr. Short is open to feedback and correction, this experience could be a wake-up call. On the other hand, his very protest speaks to an impaired capacity for self-reflection, a brittle ego defense that may be difficult to penetrate.

Either way, Dr. Short's dilemma can serve as a lesson for others, including both students and practitioners. The key to opening the locks on the dam of knowledge is readily available: It is simply a genuine desire to learn, and a willingness to confront life’s complexities. To those with a thirst for knowledge, the world is complex, and that complexity is what makes it so fascinating.

Here, in a nutshell, is the advice I gave to the graduate students at Bond during last week’s lecture that touched on the paradoxes of the unknowns:

If you haven't faced it, it's not easy to imagine this life

• To reduce the unknown unknowns, seek broad knowledge. Seek out people from other walks of life, who may not share your views or experiences. Travel outside your comfort zone, not just geographically but in other local cultures as well. These experiences can open one’s eyes to difference. Travel vicariously by reading widely, especially OUTSIDE of the insular, micro-focused and ahistorical field of psychology.

• Study up on cognitive biases and how they work. Especially, understand confirmatory bias, and build in hypothesis testing (including the testing of alternate hypotheses) as a routine practice. (Excellent resources on cognitive biases include Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise and Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson's Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), which brilliantly and unforgettably explains how two people can start out much the same but diverge dramatically so that they ultimately stare at each other as strangers across a great chasm.)

• Create formal feedback loops so that you learn how cases you were involved in were resolved, how your work was received, and whether your opinions proved accurate. 

• Don't assume you know the answer. Ask questions. And then ask more questions. 

• Stay humble. Arrogance, or overconfidence in one’s wisdom, can short-circuit understanding as surely as TSA security checkpoints destroy the fun of flying. (That rather strained metaphor is a clue that this post was penned from 40,000 feet in the air.)

• Finally, and most critically: When you look across the table, try to see a fellow human being, someone who perhaps lost their way in life's dark wood, rather than an alien or a monster. Before you judge someone, try to walk a mile in his shoes.

Ultimately, Dr. Short's dilemma flows not only from complacency but from an essential deficit in empathy, an inability to truly see -- and understand -- the fellow human being sitting across from him in that forensic interview room.

* * * * *

Notes

1. This is discussed in both the American Psychological Association's Ethics Code (Standard 4.04, Minimizing Intrusions on Privacy, states that psychologists should include in written reports "only information germane to the purpose for which the communication is made") as well as the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (see, for example, 10.01, Focus on Legally Relevant Factors).


2. The term "unknown unknown" is sometimes credited to US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who used it to explain why the United States went to war with Iraq over mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s). Although the phrase gained currency at this time, others had already used it. 


3. Heilbrun, K., & Brooks, S. (2010). Forensic psychology and forensic science: A proposed agenda for the next decade. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 219-253. 


4. For further conversation on this topic, see: Morris, E. (2010, June 20), The anosognosic's dilemma: Something's wrong but you'll never know what it is, New York Times blog.  Also see: Dunning, D. (2005). Self-Insight: Roadblocks and Detours on the Path to Knowing Thyself (Essays in Social Psychology), Psychology Press, p. 14-15; Dunning, D. & Kruger, J. (1999), Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6), 1121-1134. 


5. I cribbed the Dorner quote from Dr. Wayne Petherick, Associate Professor of Criminology and coordinator of the criminology program at Bond University. 


6. Some attribute this quote not to Josh Billings but to Mark Twain, who was kicking around at the same time. Others claim it was neither. For now, the true origin of the quote is just one more of life's unknowns. 

New analyses undermine perception of DNA infallibility

Rags-against-riches case highlights technology's pitfalls

If you trust in the technology of DNA matching, it was an impeccable case:

Lukis Anderson's DNA matched that found on the fingernails of a San Francisco Bay Area millionaire killed in a home-invasion robbery. Based on the match to Anderson’s sample in the DNA database, the homeless man was arrested on a potential capital murder charge and spent five months in jail.

Fortunately for him, Anderson had an airtight alibi: He was lying in a hospital bed miles away, drunk to the point of unconsciousness. He also had no known connection to Raveesh "Ravi" Kumra, a cell phone entrepreneur and former winery owner who was killed during a home-invasion robbery near San Jose, California.

Although Anderson's attorneys initially thought there might have been a mix-up at the crime lab – the most common cause of erroneous DNA matches – an investigation ruled out improprieties. This despite the fact that, in an ironic twist, the technician who handled the DNA evidence in the case was previously implicated in a crime lab scandal in nearby San Francisco.

Prosecutors think they have solved the mystery: The paramedics who responded to Kumra’s home were the same two who had brought Anderson to the hospital via ambulance about two hours before the home-invasion attack on Kumra began. They likely inadvertently transferred Anderson’s DNA to Kumra via their equipment or clothing.

The local prosecutor called the case unique. But this is far from the first time that cross-contamination has led to a wrongful DNA match.

One of the strangest, most infamous and most embarrassing cases was the "Phantom of Heilbronn." A mystery woman was linked to six murders and dozens of other crimes across Germany and Austria through DNA found on everything from a heroin syringe to a cookie to a stolen car. Desperate police turned to profilers, a monetary reward and even fortune-tellers and psychics to no avail. Finally, after 15 years, the case was cracked: Evidence collection kits had accidentally been contaminated by a worker at a cotton swab factory. Forensic swabs are sterilized, but sterilization does not kill DNA.

In Australia, meanwhile, a 20-year-old man named Farah Jama was convicted and spent time in prison for a rape that likely never even took place. The same forensic officer had collected his DNA in an unrelated matter a day before collecting DNA from a woman who was found unconscious at a Melbourne nightclub. The woman had no recall of events and never claimed she was assaulted; nonetheless, Jama -- who didn’t know the woman and denied ever setting foot inside the nightclub -- spent 15 months in prison before his conviction was overturned.

Potential contamination of DNA evidence also factored into the reversal of Amanda Knox’s conviction in the odd Italian case that received international scrutiny. (Stay tuned on that convoluted case, by the way; the acquittal has now been overturned and a retrial in abstentia is scheduled to begin next month.)

The fact that an airtight alibi did not prevent Alexander from languishing in jail for five months, with a potential death sentence hanging over his head, highlights the problem of blind faith in the reliability of DNA evidence. As Osagie K. Obasogie, a law professor at Hastings School of Law in San Francisco and a senior fellow at the Center for Genetics and Society, argues in a compelling New York Times op-ed:

[T]he certainty with which prosecutors charged Mr. Anderson with murder highlights the very real injustices that can occur when we place too much faith in DNA forensic technologies. In the end, Mr. Anderson was lucky. His alibi was rock solid; prosecutors were forced to concede that there must have been some other explanation. It’s hard to believe that, out of the growing number of convictions based largely or exclusively on DNA evidence, there haven’t been any similar mistakes.

Chance matches more common than thought

But there may be bigger and more ominous problem than the rare transfer errors. The claim that random DNA matches are just about impossible, promoted by crime shows like CSI and powerfully influential in court, turns out to be flat-out wrong. As DNA databases become more and more massive, so too do the odds of chance hits.

An audit of Arizona’s 65,000-profile DNA database turned up almost 150 matching pairs, collected from different people. The California case of John Puckett is frequently cited as an example of misleading over-claiming about the reliability of DNA matches. Puckett is serving life due to a cold hit in a 1972 killing. Jurors heard testimony that there was only a one-in-a-million chance of a coincidental match. But, as Obasogie points out, that figure is misleading, according to an analysis by the National Research Council:

It reflects the chance of a coincidental match in relation to the size of the general population (assuming that the suspect is the only one examined and is not related to the real culprit). Instead of the general population, we should be looking at only the number of profiles in the DNA database. Taking the size of the database into account in Mr. Puckett’s case (and, again, assuming the real culprit’s profile is not in the database) would have led to a dramatic change in the estimate, to one in three.

This overdue recognition of the fallibility of DNA technology is causing some to call for greater oversight and to rethink the idea of allowing convictions based solely upon cold hits from DNA evidence.

Obasogie's final warning is profound:

For far too long, we have allowed the myth of DNA infallibility to chip away at our skepticism of government’s prosecutorial power, undoubtedly leading to untold injustices. In the Anderson case, thankfully, prosecutors acknowledged the obvious: their suspect could not have been in two places at once. But he was dangerously close to being on his way to death row because of that speck of DNA. That one piece of evidence -- obtained from a technology with known limitations, and susceptible to human error and prosecutorial misuse -- might mistakenly lead to execution at the hands of the state should send chills down every one of our spines. The next Lukis Anderson could be you. Better hope your alibi is as well documented as his.

Related blog post: DNA science on trial (April 17, 2009)

Blogger note: As always, it was great meeting blog subscribers during my seminar and training tour at Bond University in Queensland and the American Psychological Association convention in Honolulu. Thanks to all of you who attended and participated. The trainings were great fun; now it's back to the old grindstone as I head home and get back to work.

ABC experiment exposes everyday racial profiling

In the wake of George Zimmerman's acquittal in the killing of Trayvon Martin, some have portrayed the killer as an outlier. But although most people aren't running around shooting down young Black men wearing hoodies, an experiment produced by ABC TV's "What Would You Do?" suggests that racial profiling is more the rule than the exception when it comes to perceptions of crime. 

In the experiment, three people armed with burglary tools sequentially stage the theft of a bicycle chained up in a public park. First, a white teenager. Then, a black one. Finally, a young blond girl tries her luck. Does anyone try to stop them?

Watch the video and be amazed. Then, pass it along.

The discrepancies in public perceptions graphically depicted in this video may help to explain the disproportionate outcomes under Florida's "stand your ground" law, under which it is legal to kill if one believes one is in imminent peril. Since Floridians enacted the controversial law eight years ago, those invoking it have been more likely to succeed if their victim was Black rather than white, according to an analysis by the Tampa Bay Times. About three in four of those who killed African Americans faced no penalty, compared with 6 out of 10 who killed whites.

In a case at least as egregious as Zimmerman's, a white man named Michael David Dunn is awaiting trial for shooting to death an African American teenager, Jordan Davis, at a gas station. Dunn had initiated a confrontation with Davis and his friends over the volume of the youths' music. Rolling Stone ran a moving profile of the case as an exemplar of the racial animus underlying stand-your-ground laws.

An American Psychological Association essay, "After the acquittal: The need for honest dialogue about racial prejudice and stereotyping," provides further resources on this important topic.

This post comes to you from Waikiki, where I arrived this morning from Queensland, Australia in advance of Tropical Storm (now downgraded to Tropical Depression) Flossie. I hope the storm doesn't stop anyone from attending this week's APA convention.

Dispatch from Queensland

Bond University, Robina, Queensland

The blog posts are piling up like jets on a crowded runway, but I haven't been able to carve out the time to send them aloft. It’s been a busy week, lecturing to the criminology and psychology departments at Bond University on Australia's Gold Coast and then giving a training to the College of Forensic Psychologists of the Australian Psychological Society.

The wily kookaburra

Bond is a gorgeous place, designed by an eminent architect in Japan and opened 24 years ago as Australia’s first private university. It caters to a wide range of domestic and international students. The criminology master's program, for example, has students from as far away as Canada, the United States, Iceland and even Grenada.

A fellow tourist captures gorgeous Gold Coast shoreline

The faculty's interests are equally diverse. Raoul Mortley, the Dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, who invited me over as a visiting research scholar, is a scholar of philosophy and the history of ideas. Criminologist Robyn Lincoln, my generous host, has done a slew of fascinating research, including on aboriginals in the criminal justice system, the naming and shaming of juvenile offenders, and wrongful convictions. Currently, she and her students are out riding public buses as part of a research project looking at risks faced by bus drivers. Rebekah Doley, the forensic psychologist who supervises the master’s level psychology students and who graciously organized my career talk to students, and her colleague Kate Fritzon, meanwhile, have launched a pioneering, international institute for the study of arson.

View from Elephant Rock, Carrumba (photo credit: R. Doley)

As during my first trip to Queensland, two years ago for a national forensic psychology conference, I find the country a breath of fresh air – both literally and figuratively. The staff and students at Bond are well informed on local and international issues, and are keen to discuss critical perspectives on the field. (After Americans, Australians form my next-largest subscriber base.)

The infrastructure is so much healthier than in my homeland, with its crippling debt, astronomical incarceration rates, tightening police state apparatus, and legions of homeless roaming the streets. Everything's not perfect; aboriginal incarceration rates are 15 times higher than those of other Australians. (One in every four prisoners here is aboriginal, although aboriginals are only about 2 percent of the population.) But in general, the social safety net is much more solid. Australians find it mind-boggling to hear of an advanced nation without universal health care. Service workers are paid a living wage, so they need not grovel for tips. And I've only seen two presumably homeless people so far, and I've been keeping my eyes peeled.

Lifeguards in training, Broadbeach

It hasn't been all work. As you can see from the photos, I’ve squeezed in a bit of sightseeing and nature viewing. I cycled from my hotel along the Gold Coast to Burleigh Heads one day; another day, Robyn took me into the Hinterlands, to explore a rainforest. (Hence, the kookaburra, who is a consummate thief; just minutes after I got close enough to take this photo, the bird snatched a sandwich from the hands of an unwary little girl.) Watching for migrating humpback whales from my apartment's balcony has also taken up a good deal of my down time.

Sunrise from my apartment

Next up: Honolulu. It’s a rough life.

Most civilly detained sex offenders would not reoffend, study finds

Other new research finds further flaws with actuarial methods in forensic practice

At least three out of every four men being indefinitely detained as Sexually Violent Predators in Minnesota would never commit another sex crime if they were released.

That’s the conclusion of a new study by the chief researcher for the Department of Corrections in Minnesota, the state with the highest per capita rate of preventive detention in the United States.

Using special statistical procedures and a new actuarial instrument called the MnSOST-3 that is better calibrated to current recidivism rates, Grant Duwe estimated that the recidivism rate for civilly committed sex offenders -- if released -- would be between about 5 and 16 percent over four years, and about 18 percent over their lifetimes. Only two of the 600 men detained since Minnesota's law was enacted have been released, making hollow the law's promise of rehabilitation after treatment.

Duwe -- a criminologist and author of a book on the history of mass murder in the United States -- downplays the troubling Constitutional implications of this finding, focusing instead on the SVP law’s exorbitant costs and weak public safety benefits. He notes that "Three Strikes" laws, enacted in some U.S. states during the same time period as SVP laws based on a similar theory of selective incapacitation of the worst of the worst, have also not had a significant impact on crime rates.

The problem for the field of forensic psychology is that forensic risk assessment procedures have astronomical rates of false positives, or over-predictions of danger, and it is difficult to determine which small proportion of those predicted to reoffend would actually do so.

Minnesota has taken the lead in civilly detaining men with sex crime convictions, despite the state's only middling crime rates. Unlike in most U.S. states with SVP laws, sex offenders referred for possible detention are not entitled to a jury trial and, once detained, do not have a right to periodic reviews. Detention also varies greatly by county, so geographic locale can make the difference between a lifetime behind bars and a chance to move on with life after prison.

Ironically, as noted by other researchers, by the time an offender has done enough bad deeds to be flagged for civil commitment, his offending trajectory is often on the decline. Like other criminals, sex offenders tend to age out of criminality by their 40s, making endless incarceration both pointless and wasteful.

The study, To what extent does civil commitment reduce sexual recidivism? Estimating the selective incapacitation effects in Minnesota, is forthcoming from the Journal of Criminal Justice. Contact the author (HERE) to request a copy. 

Other hot-off-the-press articles of related interest:

Risk Assessment in the Law: Legal Admissibility, Scientific Validity, and Some Disparities between Research and Practice 

Daniel A. Krauss and Nicholas Scurich, Behavioral Sciences and the Law

ABSTRACT: Risk assessment expert testimony remains an area of considerable concern within the U.S. legal system. Historically, controversy has surrounded the constitutionality of such testimony, while more recently, following the adoption of new evidentiary standards that focus on scientific validity, the admissibility of expert testimony has received greater scrutiny. Based on examples from recent appellate court cases involving sexual violent predator (SVP) hearings, we highlight difficulties that courts continue to face in evaluating this complex expert testimony. In each instance, we point to specific problems in courts’ reasoning that lead it to admit expert testimony of questionable scientific validity.We conclude by offering suggestions for how courts might more effectively evaluate the scientific validity of risk expert testimony and how mental health professionals might better communicate their expertise to the courts.

Contact Dr. Krauss (HERE) for a copy of this very interesting and relevant article. The following two articles are freely available online:

The utility of assessing "external risk factors" when selecting Static-99R reference groups

Brian Abbott, Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology

ABSTRACT: The Static-99 has been one of the most widely used sexual recidivism actuarial instruments. It has been nearly four years since the revised instrument, the Static-99R, has been released for use. Peer-reviewed literature has been published regarding the basis for changing the scoring system for the age-at-release item, the utility of relative risk data, and variability of sexual recidivism rate s across samples. Thus far, the peer-reviewed literature about the Static-99R has not adequately addressed the reliability and validity of the system to select among four possible actuarial samples (reference groups) from which to obtain score-wise observed and predicted sexual recidivism rates to apply to the individual being assessed. Rather, users have been relying upon the Static-99R developers to obtain this information through a website and workshops. This article provides a critical analysis of the reliability and validity of using the level of density of risk factors external to the Static-99R to select a single reference group among three options and discusses its implications in clinical and forensic practice. The use of alternate methods to select Static-99R reference groups is explored.

Calibration performance indicators for the Static-99R: 2013 update

Greg DeClue and Terence Campbell, Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology

ABSTRACT: Providing comprehensive statistical descriptions of tool performance can help give researchers, clinicians, and policymakers a clearer picture of whether structured assessment instruments may be useful in practice. We report positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), number needed to detain (NND), and number safely discharged (NSD), along with associated confidence intervals (CIs) for each value of the Static-99R, for one data set. Values reported herein apply to detected sexual recidivism during a 5-year fixed follow-up for the samples that the Static-99R developers consider to be roughly representative of all adjudicated sex offenders.

BLOGGER NOTE: I'm posting this research update while stranded at LAX en route to Brisbane, Australia, where I will be giving a series of seminars and trainings at Bond University before flying to Honolulu to give a full-day continuing education training at the American Psychological Association convention. (Registration for that is still open, I am told.) I'll try to blog as time allows, and I hope to see some of you at these venues.

Summer reading, and more

My regrets for the dearth of blog posts as of late. I am feverishly working to prepare all of my upcoming seminars and trainings (while keeping up with forensic case work!). I hope to see some of you next month, either in Honolulu (at my APA workshop) or at Bond University in Queensland, where I will be hosting seminars and a forensic training. I hope to bring you blog posts about these and other experiences, as time allows. In the meantime, here are a few snippets and recommendations for summer reading:

High Price: A neuroscientist’s journey of self-discovery that challenges everything you know about drugs and society 

You have probably heard of the rat studies in which rats -- allowed to press a lever to get either drugs or food -- will repeatedly choose drugs, thereby starving themselves. What you may not know is that those rats are locked in little cages all by themselves, with no friends or partners and nothing to do. Give them a pleasant life -- buddies to pal around with, cuties to hook up with, and games to play -- and they don't get strung out. It would be like running a drug study on prisoners in solitary confinement, and then claiming that your results generalize to the free world.

This is one of the more illuminating examples in Harvard psychology professor Carl Hart's new page-turner, High Price. Hart's goal is to show that current U.S. drug policy is more about racism than brain science. Unusually, his vehicle for this message is a memoir rather than an academic text. It's a courageous memoir, in which he describes his own background and upbringing in a rough section of Miami, Florida. The book is weighted more toward autobiography than the scientific research, but is quite intriguing nonetheless, illuminating the chance factors that shape our lives, and the destructive impact of drug laws on African American communities in particular.

Hart also describes studies by him and his colleagues at Columbia, in which they recruited cocaine and methamphetamine addicts to live in a lab for a couple of weeks, and get paid to take high-quality drugs. Not a bad deal. Again contrary to the dominant messages about zombie drug fiends (think of those fried-egg ads about "your brain on drugs"), the addicts made quite rational choices about whether and when to take drugs, thereby highlighting the potential for rehabilitation.

My Amazon review is HERE; video interviews with the author can be viewed HERE.

The other Wes Moore: One name, two fates

Speaking of the chance factors in life (and also drugs, race and memoirs), I have just been listening to the audio version of a fascinating book about two young Black men with the same name and similar backgrounds, both with ties to the same troubled section of drug-plagued Baltimore (think The Wire). One grew up to become a Rhodes Scholar, decorated veteran, White House Fellow and business leader, while the other ended up a convicted murderer serving a life sentence for a botched jewelry-store robbery.

"The chilling truth is that his story could have been mine. The tragedy is that my story could have been his," Moore writes.

Moore alternates the voices to narrate the stories of both men and, by extension, "a generation of boys trying to find their way in a hostile world."

The book is HERE. 

Don't trust your memory: New study on Dutch soldiers in Afghanistan

It was a dark and stormy night. Suddenly, a shot rang out.

(No, wait. Wrong lead. That was the one we used to play in the newsroom on boring days. We would each start a story with the dark-and-stormy-night lead, and go from there. Let me start again.)

It was New Year's Eve during your deployment in Afghanistan. Suddenly, a missile exploded. Gravel flew. Only through sheer luck was no one injured.

Surreptitiously fed information about this fictional event and then asked about it seven months later, about one out of every four Dutch soldiers in a larger study on PTSD falsely recalled experiencing the missile attack. Individuals with lower intelligence and those who experienced high arousal and more stressors on deployment were more vulnerable to believing misinformation.

It’s yet one more study in a growing body of data suggesting that we should take what people say with an enormous grain of salt -- especially in the contexts in which we forensic professionals often work, involving high-stress events and subjects with cognitive vulnerabilities.

The article, from the European Journal of Psychotraumatology, is available online (without a subscription) HERE.

Dark period in U.S. history: Widespread abuse of mentally ill prisoners documented

It has been an extraordinary three weeks in the history of the American penal system, perhaps one of the darkest periods on record. In four states, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes, the systemic abuse and neglect of inmates, and especially mentally ill inmates, has been investigated, chronicled and disclosed in grim detail to the world by lawyers, government investigators and one federal judge. The conclusions are inescapable: In our zeal to dehumanize criminals we have allowed our prisons to become medieval places of unspeakable cruelty so far beyond constitutional norms that they are barely recognizable.

So begins a hard-hitting expose in the Atlantic regarding the U.S. government's refusal to investigate allegations of "grotesque abuses" of mentally ill prisoners in federal penitentiaries, in the wake of similar exposes of conditions in state and local lockups.

The informative article continues HERE.

International violence risk researchers launch free news service

I don't know about you, but I find it incredibly hard to keep up with the burgeoning research in risk assessment. In this era of international fear and carceral control, disciplines from psychology to criminology to nursing to juvenile justice are cranking out more articles each month, and the deluge can feel overwhelming.

Fortunately, two prominent researchers are offering to help us stay organized and up to speed -- for free. The newly created Alliance for International Risk Research (AIRR) will send out a monthly email containing references to all new articles related to forensic risk assessment from over 80 scholarly journals. And all you have to do is sign up.

Jay Singh and Kevin Douglas, AIRR Editors-in-Chief

The AIRR is brought to you by Jay Singh and Kevin Douglas. Dr. Singh, a newly appointed professor and senior researcher for the Department of Justice in Switzerland, is one of the best and brightest around (I've featured his important research on violence risk assessment more than once on this blog); Dr. Douglas is an award-winning psychology professor at Simon Fraser University and co-author of the widely used HCR-20 violence risk assessment tool, among others. 

Their goal is to keep clinicians, policymakers, and researchers up to date in this rapidly evolving field, thus promoting evidence-based practices in the mental health and criminal justice systems. For articles published in languages other than English, the AIRR even boasts an "international coordinator" who will help disseminate the research to a global audience.

Signing up is easy: Just go to THIS LINK and provide your email contract information. The AIRR promises not to bother you with solicitations, survey participation requests or conference announcements -- "simply the latest risk-related research at your fingertips."

Don't delay! The first AIRR bulletin will be arriving in inboxes on Sept. 1.

Newspaper unfairly maligned forensic psychologist, news council holds

In an unprecedented case, a Washington news council has determined that the Seattle Times was inaccurate and unfair to a forensic psychologist targeted in an investigative series on the state's sexually violent predator program.

Reporter Christine Willmsen went too far in her four-part investigative series on the costs of implementing SVP laws by singling out psychologist Richard Wollert for public censure. Relying on prosecution sources, she portrayed Wollert as a defense hack who promulgated unorthodox theories in order to line his own pockets, quoting detractors who called him an "outlier" and "a symphony with one note" who spoke "mumbo jumbo."

During Saturday's three-hour hearing, Wollert testified that the Times series had "tainted the Washington jury pool" by implying that psychologists who testified for the defense were not credible, and damaged his professional reputation. He said his annual income plummeted from about $450,000 to between $175,000 and $200,000 in the wake of the January 2012 series. 

By a 7-to-2 vote, the Washington News Council found that the Times did not make sufficient efforts to contact sources other than prosecutors. On the larger question of whether the "Price of Protection" series was "accurate, fair, complete and balanced" in its portrayal of Wollert, the council sided with Wollert by a narrower, 6-to-4 margin. The council was evenly split on whether the headline of the first article in the series, "State Wastes Millions Helping Sex Predators Avoid Lock-up," was "accurate and fair." The votes by the ombudsman body, after a public hearing live-streamed from Seattle Town Hall, have no legal authority. The Times refused to attend what it labeled a "quasi-judicial spectacle," objecting to the council's "assumed authority." 

Accuracy, fairness and journalistic ethics

This is the second investigative series by Times reporter Willmsen to raise protests; in 2004, a local school board challenged the fairness of a series on "Coaches Who Prey." The SVP series illustrates how what passes for investigative journalism these days is often just piling on against the underdog. Reflective of the corporate monopolization of daily media, it bears little resemblance to the muckraking spirit that dominated when I was in journalism school, in the heady afterglow of Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate expose.  

Web page of the Seattle Times series

The basic premise of this series was certainly newsworthy: That Washington’s SVP law-- the first in the United States -- created "a cottage industry of forensic psychologists" who are gorging themselves at the public troughs. (That's a theme of this blog as well.) But by relying almost exclusively on prosecution sources, Willmsen became nothing more than a mouthpiece for government efforts to discredit and silence experts who present judges and juries with information that they don't like.

The case raises important distinctions among accuracy, balance and fairness in journalism. Journalists' voluntary code of ethics calls for accuracy, fairness and honesty in reporting and interpreting information. Balance, on the other hand, is not always desirable. As the Times noted in its rebuttal letter to the news council, "The pursuit of balance resulted in years of articles and broadcasts that gave the 1 percent of scientists who were climate-change deniers the same weight as the 99 percent who were certain that human activities were having an adverse impact on global climate."

Yet in this case, Willmsen's embeddedness with prosecutors resulted in such a profound lack of balance that the series was blatantly biased, and crossed the line from news reporting into advocacy. Consider Willmsen's one-sidedness in reporting on three of her major themes:

Money:

Richard Wollert testifying (from Seattle Times video)

The main theme of the series was that defense-retained experts were gouging the state. Willmsen wrote that Wollert made more than $100,000 on one SVP case; in a video from the series, Wollert is shown testifying that he earned $1.2 million from sexually violent predator cases in Washington and other states over a two-year period. That's a big chunk of taxpayer money, and the revelation undoubtedly caused public outrage against defense attorneys and their experts.

Willmsen wrote that government experts were not paid that much. However, this is demonstrably false. During the period that Willmsen was collecting data for the series, a California psychiatrist who is popular with Washington prosecutors was charging $450 per hour (the average among forensic psychologists being about half that) and -- like Wollert -- had billed more than $100,000 in a single case. His name does not show up anywhere in the series.

Following publication of the series, Washington capped the fees of defense-retained SVP experts at $10,000 for evaluations, a fee that includes all travel expenses, and $6,000 for testifying (including preparation time, travel, and deposition testimony). The fees of prosecution-retained experts were not capped.

Boilerplate reports:

In the video, Willmsen targets defense-retained expert Ted Donaldson for writing boilerplate reports in which the names were changed, but the text remained virtually the same.

Boilerplate reports are indeed a travesty. Especially when someone is facing potentially lifelong detention for a crime that is only a future possibility, experts should present a keen understanding of what makes that specific individual tick. But, having reviewed dozens of reports in Washington SVP cases, I can attest to the fact that government hacks are at least as guilty of this sin. In fact, one of the most popular of prosecution-retained experts in Washington is infamous for writing novel-length boilerplate reports. In two recent cases that I am aware of, he even forgot to excise the name of the previous individual. So, one will be reading along in his report on Mr. Smith, and suddenly come across big chunks of material describing Mr. Jones.

Faulty science:

In her reporting, Willmsen lambasted an actuarial tool developed by Wollert, the MATS-1, as being illegitimate. The idea behind the MATS-1 is to fully account for the reduction in risk that occurs as offenders age. The reporter quoted Karl Hanson, a Canadian researcher who is unhappy with Wollert because Wollert modified his popular Static-99 tool to create the MATS-1. But a fair and unbiased report would not rely for the unvarnished truth on a source who is essentially a business rival. In truth, as I've blogged about myriad times, there are plenty of grounds to critique the methodology and accuracy of any actuarial technique. In contrast to her disdain for the newer MATS-1, Willmsen lauds the Static-99 as the most widely used actuarial tool for assessing sex offender risk. But just because McDonald's sells way more burgers than In and Out Burgers does not mean their beef is any purer. 

As Wollert told the council members, "When we're talking about the advancement of science, people have different ideas"; one test of good research is whether "it's accepted over time." By that standard, Wollert's theories are doing pretty well. His published thesis that actuarial tools overestimated risk among elderly offenders was once controversial but is now widely accepted. Similarly, he was one of the first to publish criticism of the predictive abilities of the MnSOST-R actuarial tool; recently, that instrument was pulled from use because of its inaccuracy in predicting sex offender recidivism. And Wollert was emphasizing Bayesian reasoning -- most recently popularized by Nate Silver in The Signal and the Noise -- before many in our field realized how essential it was. 

While it is certainly laudable for the press to investigate bloated fees and the waste of taxpayer money, by laying all blame on the defense, the Times likely prejudiced the jury pool and squelched zealous representation by defense attorneys, who in terms of both resources and legal clout are like David battling the state’s mighty Goliath. Instead of proffering Wollert as a whipping boy, then, an impartial investigation would have uncovered exemplars of problematic practices on both sides of the legal aisle.

A true muckracking journalist would have dug even further, to ask:

• How did opportunist politicians bamboozle the public into enacting costly laws that do little to protect the public, while simultaneously distracting from more fruitful efforts at reducing sexual violence? 

• How has the SVP laws' legal requirement of a mental disorder expanded the influence of forensic psychology, with battles of the experts over sham diagnoses boosting the fortunes of shrewd practitioners, many of whom were toiling away as lowly prison and hospital hacks prior to these laws?  

Talking to the press

During their public deliberations, several council members chastised Wollert for declining Willmsen's repeated requests for an interview. Wollert said that the reporter had been rude and exuded bias when she approached him. But the panelists said Wollert had no legitimate expectation of deference or politeness.

"You cut your own throat," said John Knowlton, a council member and journalism professor at Green River Community College.

But must a source submit to an interview, even if he knows that it is a trap, and that his words will be twisted and used against him? This is a dodgy question. While many journalists are conscientious and above-board, others are not. Recall Janet Malcolm's provocative opening words in The Journalist and the Murderer, examining the ethics and morality of journalism in connection with journalist Joseph McGuiness's betrayal of murder suspect Jeffrey MacDonald in Fatal Vision:

"Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people's vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse. Like the credulous widow who wakes up one day to find the charming young man and all her savings gone, so the consenting subject of a piece of nonfiction learns -- when the article or book appears -- his hard lesson."

Perhaps Wollert could have adequately protected himself by asking the reporter to submit her questions in advance, and by responding in writing, via email. But who knows?

His decision to trust his instincts may have come back to bite him. Then again, he might have been bit even worse had he let down his guard with an agenda-driven journalist who had him in her crosshairs.

THE WASHINGTON NEWS COUNCIL ENCOURAGES THE PUBLIC TO JOIN IN THE DEBATE. CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VIDEO AND HERE TO CAST YOUR VOTE. COMPREHENSIVE RESOURCES ON THE CASE ARE AVAILABLE HERE. SEATTLE'S NONPROFIT JOURNALISM PROJECT CROSSCUT HAS A GOOD REPORT ON THE NEWS COUNCIL DECISION; YOU CAN ADD YOUR COMMENTS ON THAT WEBSITE.