New book on cutting-edge controversies in psychology-law

Beyond Common Sense: Psychological Science in the Courtroom
Edited by Eugene Borgida and Susan T. Fiske

So many books are pouring out these days on forensic psychology and psychology-law that my first thought was, Do we really need another one? But when I took a look at the contributors and the topics I changed my mind. Why? Because this book focuses on the influences of stereotypes and prejudice, topics too often overlooked.

Says Claude Steele, the Stanford University scholar of stereotype-busting fame:

This world-class collection of scholars and researchers upends our common sense understandings of human prejudice and the law's ability to control it. Yet, just as importantly, it brings to the fore a vastly deeper understanding of these issues. It is more than a state of the art collection. It is a classic collection that, for a long time, will be indispensable to discussions of prejudice and the law, as well as the relationship between science and the public good.

Here's more, from the book's description:

Beyond Common Sense addresses the many important and controversial issues that arise from the use of psychological and social science in the courtroom.

• Chapters by leading experts in the field of psychology and law including Elizabeth Loftus, Saul Kassin, Faye Crosby, Alice Eagly, Gary Wells, Louise Fitzgerald, Craig Anderson, and Phoebe Ellswort

• Each chapter identifies areas of scientific agreement and disagreement, and discusses how psychological science advances an understanding of human behavior beyond what is accessible by common sense

• The 14 issues addressed include eyewitness identification, gender stereotypes, repressed memories, Affirmative Action, and the death penalty -- among others

• Commentaries written by 7 leading social science and law scholars discuss key legal and scientific themes that emerge from the science chapters and illustrate how psychological science is or can be used in the courts.

"Dr. Phil" controversy highlights public confusion over psychology

The uproar over Phillip McGraw's intrusive interaction with Britney Spears raises a number of interesting issues about clinical psychology and the privacy rights of hospital patients.

As most of you know by now, McGraw barged into Spears' hospital room January 5, apparently without an invitation from the beleaguered pop star. After soliciting her appearance on his TV advice show, he issued a public statement about her condition.

In the wake of this incident, some have accused McGraw of violating doctor-patient confidentiality. But McGraw is not a doctor, nor was Spears his patient.

Much of the public confusion on this point is due to the TV personality's use of the title "Doctor." Like Laura Schlessinger, the conservative radio pundit with a Ph.D. in physiology who calls herself "Dr. Laura," anyone with a doctoral degree is technically a doctor (of philosophy). But to engage in therapy as a clinical psychologist, a person must also be licensed in the appropriate state. While McGraw holds a doctoral degree in psychology, he is not licensed as a psychologist or a mental health practitioner in any state.

Once upon a time, McGraw really was licensed as a clinical psychologist. In 1989, the Texas board that licenses psychologists disciplined him for an inappropriate "dual relationship" with a 19-year-old patient. (McGraw denies the young woman's claim that the relationship was sexual.) The Texas Board of Examiners of Psychologists ordered him to take an ethics class and have his practice supervised for a year. He subsequently stopped practicing therapy and started a jury consultation firm, Courtroom Sciences Inc. (CSI). It was in this capacity that he met Oprah Winfrey, then fighting a lawsuit by the beef industry, who boosted him into the world of show biz.

His haranguing style of voyeuristic quasi-therapy has proved enormously popular. Last year, he netted 6.7 million viewers and earned a whopping $45 million.

What’s the attraction? Some scholars have compared it to a religious conversion narrative, involving a confession, a testimonial, a moral authority (Dr. Phil), and an instant cure.

"It's the quintessential cultural product," said media consultant Ellen McGrath, also a psychologist. "Get some quick advice and change your life. You, too, can hit the psychological jackpot…. It's a spectator sport to watch someone be humiliated. It's the psychological version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire."

Bottom line: Since McGraw (much like Britney Spears) is a celebrity icon rather than a licensed professional, he is not governed by any code of medical ethics or by the state and federal rules and regulations that apply to licensed clinical psychologists.

What about the hospital? Some have suggested that Cedars-Sinai Medical Center may have violated Spears' privacy rights when they allowed McGraw into her hospital room with her permission. But even that claim is somewhat tenuous, since her parents invited him into the hospital.

Ironically, amidst all of the fury over whether McGraw or the hospital violated any legal or ethical rules, other professionals who are exploiting Britney Spears' problems have escaped reproach. For example, three clinical psychologists and psychiatrists are quoted in an online gossip magazine as publicly diagnosing Spears with everything from mania to borderline personality disorder to a "genetic predisposition" to depression.

The Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association has several sections addressing drive-by assessments conducted without benefit of personal evaluation.

Ethical Standard 9.01 states that, in general, psychologists should only provide opinions about someone's psychological characteristics after having conducted an examination adequate to support their statements or conclusions. More broadly, Principle E, "Respect for People's Rights and Dignity," states that psychologists respect "the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination."

These self-same spokespersons for psychology and psychiatry call themselves by their first names, a la "Dr. Phil," and one is even premiering his own online TV show tonight - a live celebrity rehab show.

Between "Doctor" Phillip McGraw and the rest of these spokespeople, it's no wonder some members of the the public are confused, not to mention a bit leery of the mental health profession.

For more information:

"Do the rules apply to Dr. Phil?" New York Times, Jan. 10, 2008

"Analyze This," Dallas Observer, April 13, 2000 (background on McGraw’s career; information on legal cases involving Dr. Phil can be found here and here).

"Patient in the spotlight," Newsweek, Jan. 8, 2008

"Spears clan calls foul on Dr. Phil's blabbermouth," E! Online, Jan. 9, 2008

Photo credit r5d4 (Creative Commons license)

Historic hearings to commence on Calif. death penalty

Amid renewed national controversy over capital punishment, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice is holding public hearings beginning tomorrow on the death penalty in California. At the first hearing, a lineup of luminaries will present evidence about racial, ethnic, and geographic disparities in who is sentenced to die.

The Commission was created by the state Senate in 2004 to investigate the causes of wrongful conviction and wrongful executions, and to recommend reforms to make California's criminal justice system "just, fair, and accurate." Composed of law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and citizens, the Commission has already issued a series of unanimous recommendations on other criminal justice issues, including:

• Eyewitness Identification
• False Confessions
• Use of Jailhouse Informants
• Scientific Evidence
• Professional Responsibility and Accountability of Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers
• Remedies for Wrongful Conviction
• Fair Administration of the Death Penalty

(Click on any of the above links to see the related report.) A press release about the death penalty hearings, slated for January, February and March, is here.

Guest commentary: Prisoners of panic

Yesterday's Los Angeles Times featured a great opinion piece on the costly and out-of-control effects of tough-on-crime rhetoric. It was written by Joe Domanick, a senior fellow at the USC Annenberg Institute for Justice and Journalism. Mr. Domanick, author of "Cruel Justice: Three Strikes and the Politics of Crime in America's Golden State," is currently at work on a book about California's prison system. With his permission, I'm posting the entire piece.

Guest commentary by Joe Domanick

Prisoners of panic: Media hype and political quick fixes have swelled our inmate population

from the L.A. Times, January 6, 2008

How much more folly, absurdity, fiscal irresponsibility and human tragedy will we endure before we stop tolerating the political pandering that has dictated our criminal justice law and policy over the last two decades?

The pattern has become all too clear. Our politicians, fearful of being labeled "soft on crime," react to sensationalistic coverage of a crime with knee-jerk, quick-fix answers. Only years later do the mistakes, false assumptions and unexpected consequences begin to emerge, and then the criminal justice system is forced to deal with the mess created by the bad lawmaking.

For example, remember the great crack scare of the 1980s? When basketball superstar Len Bias, who'd been drafted by the Boston Celtics as a franchise player, died of a crack overdose, the media went wild in covering it. Alarmed by the sudden increase in crack use and fearful that the drug was highly addictive and disposed users to commit violence, Congress mandated tough minimum sentences for crack-related crimes. A defendant convicted of possessing a small amount of crack could receive the same sentence as one possessing 100 times that amount of powder cocaine. Because crack users were disproportionately African American (and powder cocaine users were disproportionately white), 85% of those receiving dealer-like sentences for possession or sale of small amounts of crack were black -- an outcome that helped to fuel widespread perceptions among blacks that there was a double standard of justice in the U.S.

In December, the overly harsh and misguided sentencing policy concocted during the "war on drugs" in the 1980s was finally modified. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that judges were no longer bound by the strict sentencing guidelines, freeing the jurists to craft punishment that best fits the crime and the background of the defendant.

The 1990s produced its own racially tinged crime panics. Led by John J. Dilulio Jr., a political scientist at Princeton University, and William J. Bennett, a former secretary of Education in the Reagan Cabinet, law-and-order proponents declared that the U.S. was being overrun by a new generation of remorseless "super-predators" spawned by crack-head mothers in violence-infested ghettos. Stories of kids committing heinous crimes were common in the media. One of the most sensational occurred in Chicago in October 1994. Two boys, one 10 years old, the other 11, dropped 5-year-old Eric Morse from the 14th floor of a housing project, killing him, because he refused to steal candy for them.

In response to such crimes, politicians across the country passed anti-super-predator laws. In many states, including California, the age kids could be tried as adults was lowered to 14, and in 48 states, the decision to try juveniles as adults was taken away from judges and given to prosecutors. As a result, the number of people under 18 tried as adults rose dramatically through the 1990s, and a small percentage of them were even sentenced to prison. Ironically, the predicted crime explosion caused by super-predators never materialized. Juvenile arrests declined by more than 45% from 1994 to 2004, according to FBI statistics.

But the ultimate example of media hype meeting irresponsible politicians to produce bad public policy is California's three-strikes law. It was chiefly written by Fresno photographer Mike Reynolds after the murder of his daughter, Kimber, in 1992.Introduced in the Legislature, the bill languished until the rape and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas in 1993. A network of right-wing talk-radio hosts reacted to the killing by fiercely promoting Reynolds' measure, which had provisions like no other three-strikes bill in that virtually any crime, no matter how petty, could be prosecuted as a third strike.

In 1994, the Legislature unanimously put the measure on the November ballot, and Proposition 184 passed easily. The law would eventually send thousands of Californians to prison for 25 years to life, some for such third-strike crimes as attempting to steal a bottle of vitamins from a drug store, buying a macadamia nut disguised as a $5 rock of cocaine from an undercover cop and shoplifting $2.69 worth of AA batteries.

Today, Californians are still paying the price for that folly and other like-minded laws, not just in the ruined and wasted lives of people sentenced under these laws, but in other ways. There are now tens of thousands of inmates in California convicted of nonviolent crimes and serving out long second- and third-strike sentences, as well as thousands more behind bars because minor crimes were turned into felonies with mandatory minimum sentences.

All these laws have contributed to severe overcrowding in the state's prisons -- as high as 200% of capacity -- that has produced conditions of such "extreme peril" for prisoners and guards that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was forced to declare a systemwide state of emergency in 2006. Since 2003, the inmate population has grown 8%, to about 173,000. But the budget of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has skyrocketed 79%, to $8.5 billion, becoming the fastest-growing category in the state budget and a factor in opening up a $14-billion budget deficit.

The get-tough-on-crime laws also have helped create a crisis in California's prison healthcare system, where spending has risen to $1.9 billion a year, up 263% since 2000. A large part of the problem is that the prison population is aging because inmates are serving the longer sentences approved by lawmakers, and with aging comes more medical problems. The system became so understaffed and dysfunctional that a federal judge ruled that it was causing at least one avoidable death a week through sheer neglect and ineptitude. He has seized the entire prison medical system and placed it under his direct supervision.

Faced with the huge budget deficit and judicial threats to cap the state's prison population, Schwarzenegger's office has been floating the idea of early release for about 22,000 inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes. That 13% cut in prisoners, however, would require legislative approval, something that is by no means certain. The story of crime and punishment in California -- and the country -- since the 1980s, after all, has been quick-fix answers fueled by media hype. Let's hope that such proposals as releasing nonviolent inmates receive serious attention rather than panicky headlines that lead to bad criminal justice laws.

The death machine: "One thoroughly screwed-up system"

Just in time for next Monday's U.S. Supreme Court hearing on a challenge to the three-drug cocktail used in most U.S. executions, Time magazine has issued a scathing denunciation of the state of capital punishment in the United States. This follows negative publicity in Newsweek magazine a couple of months ago (see my blog post of Nov. 25, 2007). Perhaps wind is on my mind due to the incredible windstorm we're having here in the San Francisco Bay Area today, but I'm sensing winds of change in the air.

Here are some tantalizing excerpts from the no-holds-barred Time piece:

In a perfect world, perhaps, the government wouldn't wait 30 years and several hundred executions to determine whether an execution method makes sense....

Any other government program that delivered 3% of what it promised -- while costing millions of dollars more than the alternative -- would be a scandal, but the death penalty is different. In its ambiguity, complexity and excess, the system expresses a lot about who we are as a nation....

Our death penalty's continued existence, countering the trend of the rest of the developed world, expresses our revulsion to violent crime and our belief in personal accountability. The endless and expensive appeals reflect our scrupulous belief in consistency and individual justice….

We add safeguards one day, then shortcut them the next. One government budget contains millions of dollars for prosecutions, while another department spends more millions to defend against them. Indeed, the very essence of ambiguity is our vain search for a bloodless, odorless, motionless, painless, foolproof mode of killing healthy people….

We now have a situation in which a majority of the states that authorize the death penalty seldom if ever use it. Last year only 10 states carried out an execution. And even that number overstates the vigor of the system. If you don't count executions of inmates who voluntarily dropped their appeals and asked to be killed -- essentially government-assisted suicides -- the state count falls to eight….

The ungainly, ambivalent collapse of the death penalty seems unfitting for a punishment whose very existence is largely symbolic. But the trend is unmistakable.

The Supreme Court is part of this slow-motion shutdown of the death-penalty machine. In recent years the court has banned executions of mentally retarded inmates and of prisoners who committed their crimes as minors. The mere fact that the court is hearing the lethal-injection cases is historic because the institution has always been reluctant to inquire into the business end of the death penalty….

The discussion itself is another sign of the nation's ambivalence about the ultimate, irreversible punishment. And as long as we're ambivalent, we'll continue to have the system we have made for ourselves--inefficient, beyond repair and increasingly empty.

Hat tip to Sentencing Law & Policy for alerting me to this article.

Colorful juries more competent

At a holiday party, the topic of jury duty came up. Immediately, everyone started competing to tell how they "got out of" serving. That's too bad, I thought. These folks would all make fine jurors.

Last month, I was involved in a trial in which a group of citizens who did not shirk their civic duty voted to free a teenager facing life for a murder he did not commit. The defense attorney described the jury fondly as "colorful."

What's color got to do with it? Quite a bit, as it turns out.

A colorful, or racially diverse, group actually thinks better than a more homogeneous one. In a recent study, mixed-race juries performed better on all areas assessed, including:

• Amount of information considered
• Factual accuracy of deliberations
• Thoroughness of analysis
• Open-mindedness (especially about race)

Traditionally, people have assumed that the difference is because minority jurors bring different life experiences and perspectives to the group. As Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall put it more than 30 years ago, exclusion of "any large and identifiable segment of the community" removes "varieties of human experience" from the mix: "It is not necessary to assume that the excluded group will consistently vote as a class in order to conclude . . . that its exclusion deprives the jury of a perspective on human events that may have unsuspected importance in any case."

But new evidence suggests there is more to it than that: White jurors actually think more efficiently when they are faced with the prospect of being part of a diverse group. It's as if the goal of not being perceived as prejudiced, or of being accepted by others, switches the brain from autopilot to full-concentration mode.

In contrast, all-white juries tended to be lazy, inaccurate, superficial, and unwilling to discuss uncomfortable topics (especially race). At least that's what Samuel Sommers, the author of a recent study, found.

Interestingly, even bringing up the issue of race during voir dire questioning of potential jurors may increase open-mindedness and thoughtfulness, Sommers observed. (Asking questions like, for example, "Do you have any biases or prejudices that might prevent you from judging an African American defendant fairly?")

This makes sense, because modern racism is largely subtle and unconscious. In other words, people behave in biased ways while consciously thinking of themselves as fair-minded. So if you activate race as a salient issue, whites will more likely make conscious efforts to avoid prejudice.

The court-sponsored research used mock jurors who were drawn from actual jury pools in a Michigan county. The jurors were presented with a video of a Court TV case involving an African American man accused of sexually assaulting a white female.

Such research suggesting the superiority of multicultural juries is not likely to dissuade prosecutors from their frequent practice of removing Blacks through peremptory challenges. After all, predominately white juries are more punitive, especially toward non-white defendants. More thorough and efficient deliberations generally work in favor of the accused, especially if he is African American.

That's apparently what happened in the trial I just mentioned. After much deliberation, the "colorful" jury migrated from leaning toward guilt to outright acquittal.

Although I didn't get to be a fly on the wall inside of that deliberation room, I can imagine the scenario based on what I experienced when I served on a similarly colorful jury earlier this year. Unlike in the mock jury study described above, the case in which I was a juror did not explicitly involve race. The defendant, the victim, and the arresting officers all were white. Yet, as Justice Marshall predicted, the jury's diversity provided perspectives that would not otherwise have been considered. Several white jurors walked into the deliberations room ready to cast their vote (for guilty), thinking that the case was cut-and-dried. After a sometimes-heated discussion that lasted for days, they came to realize there was more to the case than initially met the eye. The vast economic and educational range - another great thing about American juries - also increased the range and quality of the deliberations.

I hope the above-described research is extended in the future to cases like this, in which race is not an explicit issue but still broadens (or colors, if you will) the deliberations.

* * * * *

The study is: Samuel Sommers (2006), "On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects in racial composition on jury deliberations," Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 4, pp. 597-612.

Other resources:

"Racial Bias in Jury Selection is Common Yet Denied, Study Finds"

"Jurors deliberate competently, study finds"

Samuel Sommers & Michael Norton (2006), "Race-based judgments, race-neutral justifications: Experimental examination of peremptory use and the Batson challenge procedure," Law & Human Behavior.

Jury & Democracy Project

"Harmful effects of unintentional racism"

Antonio et al (2004), "Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students," Psychological Science, Vol. 15, pp. 507-510.

Joel Lieberman and Bruce Sales, Scientific Jury Selection (see my review at Amazon.com)

Intriguing new book: Psychology of women's violence

The second edition of Anna Motz's Psychology of Female Violence: Crimes Against the Body is now available for download as an ebook. The print version is forthcoming from Taylor & Francis. From the book's description:

What are the causes of violence in women? What can be done to help these women and their victims? Why does society deny the fact of female violence? This book explores the nature and causes of female violence from the perspectives of psychodynamic theory and forensic psychology. This fully updated and expanded second edition explores developments in research and services for violent women. The Psychology of Female Violence will be valuable to trainees and practitioners working in the fields of clinical and forensic psychology, women's studies, sociology, psychiatric nursing, social work, probation, counselling, psychoanalysis, the criminal justice system and criminology. Recent high profile cases of female violence are discussed alongside clinical material and theory.

Topics in the new edition include:

• The Victoria Climbié Inquiry
• The controversy surrounding Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy
• Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder in women
• The impact of pro-anorexia and pro-bulimia websites
• Clinical issues of working with women who kill
• Designing therapeutic services for women in secure mental health settings
• Women who sexually and physically abuse children
• Infanticide
• Fabricated and induced illness
• Self Harm

Was Tatiana the tiger attacked with slingshots?

A news report today adds further support for the theory that the San Francisco Zoo tiger who attacked three men on Christmas Day was responding to extreme provocation.

Citing an unnamed source, today's New York Post reports that the injured men were armed with slingshots and had an empty vodka bottle in their car. This would support the theory that the men were engaging in a drunken display of masculine bravado when the 350-pound Siberian tiger went into hyperdrive, leaping across a moat to attack them. (See my post of Dec. 29.)

NOTE: On Jan. 2, the day after I posted this, ABC News quoted police as flatly denying that the men were carrying slingshots. The Dhaliwal brothers' high-profile attorney, Mark Geragos (of Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson fame), called the slingshot story an urban legend.

Speculation is rife about the circumstances of the mauling that left a 17-year-old boy dead. Neither police nor the surviving brothers, Kulbir and Amritpal Dhaliwal, are talking, and no other witnesses have come forward.

My original post of Dec. 29 is here. I also recommend an interesting commentary by professor of medicine Marc Siegel on the fight-or-flight instinct as it pertains to Tatiana: "The Emotions of Attack."

Teen drug and alcohol use still declining

Drug and alcohol use among teens continues to decline from its high of about a decade ago. That's the good news announced by the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy just in time for the new year. The declines since 2001 are as follows, according to the annual survey conducted by the University of Michigan:

• 15% drop in alcohol use (although it's still pretty high!)
  
• 24% drop in overall use of illegal drugs
• 25% drop in marijuana use
• 33% drop in steroid use
• 54% drop in Ecstasy
• 64% drop in methamphetamine
• 33% drop in cigarette smoking

On the other hand, prescription drug abuse continues to increase. Since 2002, Oxycontin use has increased 30% among teens; Vicodin use also remains high.

Here are a few colorful slides illustrating the trends; the complete report and slide show are available online.

A plague in Coalinga

You may have heard about the epidemic of valley fever at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, located in California's Central Valley. Today's news reported that more than 900 prisoners and 80 employees have been stricken.

The sometimes-lethal fungal infection is endemic to, and on the rise in, the American Southwest. Like something out of a body snatcher flick, the spores that cause it live in the soil, and are inhaled when the soil is disturbed.

"You don’t do stupid things like go out on windy days or dig in the dirt," the mayor of Coalinga was quoted as saying. (Eek!)

New construction is suspected in the alarming rise in cases at the prison, where 1 out of 10 prisoners now tests positive. News reports mention as a possible culprit an increase in custom-home construction in the out-of-the-way hamlet of Coalinga. But what the news reports aren't mentioning is the construction of a $400 million state hospital immediately adjacent to the prison. Coalinga State Hospital, built primarily to house the state's burgeoning population of civilly committed sex offenders, opened just two years ago, right before the peak in valley fever infections at the prison.

Coincidence? Hmm.

Whatever the cause of the plague, revelations of its ubiquity in Coalinga will likely add to the hospital's already massive problems in recruiting qualified professional staff.

See my previous posts on the Coalinga State Hospital woes here and here.

Happy New Year, San Francisco Zoo

When I was a little girl, a friendly keeper at the San Francisco Zoo invited me into a cage and let me hold a koala bear. It was a thrilling moment. And one not likely to be repeated in today's climate of institutional fear over "deep-pocket" lawsuits.

Because the topic of my doctoral research and subsequent publications was public exhibitions of masculinity among young male humans, my antenna went up on Christmas when I heard about the tiger attack at the S.F. Zoo.

What caught my interest was the initial news report that the tiger attacked three young men who had been lingering by the tiger's cage after the zoo had closed - possibly ignoring other potential victims.

Another detail increased my professional interest. The two surviving victims, brothers age 23 and 19, were hostile and uncooperative with police. Think about it: If you were stalked and mauled by a rampaging tiger, why would you try to mislead and obstruct investigators?

A third revelation of note was that these brothers, Kulbir and Amritpal Dhaliwal, were awaiting trial for a recent display of alleged drunken aggression. In that Oct. 9 incident, police caught the brothers chasing two men; after their arrest they allegedly cursed police and kicked the police car's security partition. They are scheduled to appear in court in a couple of weeks on misdemeanor charges of public intoxication and resisting arrest.

Interestingly, it was the older of these belligerent brothers that Tatiana the tiger first attacked; the unfortunate Carlos Sousa Jr. was apparently killed when he intervened to save his friend.

While speculation persists about the victims' potential contribution to the attack, the media are focusing more on the height of the wall outside of the tiger grotto's moat. Is it built to the height of the recommended standards of the 21st century? Of course not. It is 67 years old. And in all those years, not one tiger has escaped. Indeed, experts say that around the world thousands of tigers are kept in enclosures of roughly the same height, and they don't escape.

As one wildlife expert commented, the ultimate explanation for Tatiana's attack is not the height of the wall, but the "stimulus" she was reacting to. "Tigers around the world are perfectly safe behind 10-foot or 12-foot walls," said Martine Colette, founder of a wildlife refuge in Southern California. "There had to have been a tremendous stimulus that made the tiger react the way she did."

In a state of extreme fear or anger, a tiger - like a human - is capable of extraordinary feats of strength that otherwise would not have been possible. Based on this, professor of medicine Mark Siegel commented, "It seems clear that Tatiana was provoked or taunted to such a state of anger or agitation that her hyper-drive took over."

If indeed the tiger was provoked, this would conform with a typical display of masculine aggression. These displays - which often take the form of sexual aggression or antigay harassment - serve the functions of proving masculinity, social bonding, and the celebration of male power. In these forms of participatory theater, the targets - whether they be women, gay men, or even, as in this case, a tiger - serve as interchangeable dramatic props. (See my article on this topic.)

While no avenue of investigation should be ignored, I hope the media and investigators will focus as much attention on the likely provocation as in Monday morning quarterbacking of the zoo's response. As a struggling public institution whose aim is to educate the public about wildlife conservation and endangered species, the S.F. Zoo can ill afford a deep-pocket verdict based on misplaced castigation.

Also see my update of Jan. 1, 2008.

Photo credit: Kurt Rogers, S.F. Chronicle

Prisoner reintegration: An ethical duty?

The Second Chance Act of 2007 (H.R. 1593) would authorize $340 million in programs to reintegrate prisoners to their communities. Passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and now pending in the Senate, the legislation could present new opportunities for psychologists and other mental health professionals interested in working with high-needs parolees. The upcoming issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter focuses on re-entry issues. The introductory article, "The Second Chance Act and the Future of the Reentry Movement," is available online. Here is the abstract:

Recently passed by the House of Representatives with strong bipartisan support and currently awaiting action in the Senate, the If enacted, the SCA would represent a new milestone in the growing influence of the prisoner reentry movement, which has focused public attention on the daunting obstacles facing returning prisoners who seek to rebuild their lives as productive citizens. This essay, which introduces a forthcoming issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter devoted to the SCA and the challenges of reentry, critiques aspects of the SCA, considers the implications of the reentry movement for sentencing, and argues that reentry-based reforms should not be conceptualized primarily as recidivism reduction measures, but as opportunities to fulfill ethical obligations to some of the most marginalized and disadvantaged members of society.

Hat tip to Sentencing Law & Policy.

California: Throw off your chains, ye wretched prisoners?

Two big stories out of California today:

In what would probably be the largest mass release in U.S. history, prison doors could swing open early for more than 22,000 prisoners. The governor's plan to release nonviolent offenders with less than 20 months to go on their sentences would ease prison overcrowding and save the state almost $800 million over the next couple of years with little risk to the public. California has the largest prison population in the nation, with 172,000 prisoners. The guards' union, a major influence in this prison-heavy state, will undoubtedly try to halt the move, which would cost more than 4,000 prison jobs. The full story is here.

In another development, officials admit they are removing GPS tracking devices from sex offenders who have completed parole, in violation of a state law that requires lifetime monitoring. That's because Jessica's Law, enacted by voters in 2006, doesn't specify who is responsible for the monitoring or who will pay the exorbitant costs. Nor does it penalize ex-offenders for removing the GPS devices.

Both state and local officials say they don't have the funds to monitor the offenders. "We don't know what it's going to cost, and the conservative estimates are hundreds of millions of dollars" as more offenders complete parole, said Nancy O'Malley, chief assistant district attorney in Alameda County.

The state's Sex Offender Management Board is pondering a solution. The full story is here.

Photo credit: Puff's Daddy's (Creative Commons license).

Fascinating new twists in Tim Masters case

Expert witness psychologist cited FBI profiler who had rejected prosecution theory of case

The forensic psychology angles in Tim Masters' ongoing motion for a new trial in Fort Collins, Colorado are increasingly fascinating. Here are a few of the newest:

Roy Hazelwood, the pioneering FBI profiler, was hired as a police consultant but rejected the police theory of the case, which linked 15-year-old Masters to a 1987 sex-murder based on the boy's doodles. Police withheld this information from defense attorneys at Masters' 1999 trial, and Hazelwood was never called as a witness.

With Hazelwood giving a thumbs-down to the police theory, prominent forensic psychologist Reid Meloy became the prosecution's star witness. He did exactly what Hazelwood had cautioned against, connecting Masters to the killing based on a series of violent sketches. Ironically, Meloy cited Hazelwood's theories on profiling as a basis for his opinion.

In addition to the "scary doodles," as they have been dubbed by the media, Meloy theorized that the date linked the killing to Masters, because it was the anniversary of the date that Masters' mother had gone to a hospital. But the information now being turned over by prosecutors suggests that this theory was fed to Meloy by Fort Collins police.

No physical evidence has ever linked Masters to the crime. The newly revealed police notes reflect that authorities were suspicious of a suspected sex offender who lived nearby and later killed himself. Authorities destroyed evidence linking that man, eye surgeon Richard Hammond, to the murder, and did not provide his name to the defense.

The ongoing hearings are aimed at getting a new trial for Masters, who is serving a life sentence, and also getting sanctions against the original prosecutors, both of whom are now judges, for withholding evidence.

The moral for forensic psychologists: Carefully protect your neutrality and independence; never let partisans for one side or the other influence (or appear to influence) your theories or findings.

Note: A more recent post on this case is here.

For my earlier blog posts on this case, click HERE and/or HERE. A Denver Post video, "The Story of Tim Masters," shows details of Masters' police interrogations. The Pro Libertate blog has case analysis, graphics, and links. A blog dedicated to the case, Free Tim Masters Because, has a lengthy page devoted to the role of Dr. Meloy.

Other news coverage includes:
Undisclosed Masters evidence nags, Denver Post, Dec. 20, 2007Notes in Masters case wanted "profile" stricken, Denver Post, Dec. 18, 2007Attorneys: It was the doctor - Master’s defense says Hammond had all the makings of real killer, Reporter Herald (Loveland, CO), Dec. 18, 2007Testimony returns to subject of expert, Reporter Herald, Dec. 17, 2007

News roundup

Scot freed after 20 years

This story hasn't been getting much press in the United States, but it's been a topic of interest in Europe. Kenneth Richey of Scotland has spent 20 years on death row in Ohio, exhausting round after round of appeals for a crime he insists he didn't do. Finally, a plea bargain has been reached in which he will plead no contest to involuntary manslaughter and be home in time for Christmas.

Europeans had been outraged at the conditions of Richey's confinement, which are ho-hum here in the prison nation. Said one Scottish official who visited Richey:

"The reality of somebody who is kept locked up in a cell for 23 hours a day for 19 years is quite mind-blowing. It is a dreadful, inhumane and dehumanising system. If one man is off it, then remember there are hundreds [sic!] of people in America still enduring that dreadful situation."

The London Times has more.

Children electroshocked (roll over, Stanley Milgram)

A prankster has outdone experimental researcher Stanley Milgram by a long shot, telephoning a school for the severely disturbed and easily convincing school officials to shock pupils up to 77 times each!

The prank is highlighting the fact that the Massachusetts school, Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, routinely administers electroshock as punishment. The school is the only one in the United States that does so; the device's inhumanity is concealed by the clinical-sounding name of graduated electronic decelerator.

ABC News has the story here.

Are trial lawyers an endangered species?

The University of Pennsylvania Law Review has a special issue on the changing landscape of U.S. criminal law, especially in the federal system. With plea bargains the norm, trials – which bring the possibility of acquittal – are becoming rarer. The articles are in response to an earlier essay by law professor Ronald F. Wright entitled "Trial Distortion and the End of Innocence in Federal Criminal Justice."

This trend has direct relevance to the practice of forensic psychology. Without the truth-exploring forum of a trial, both trial lawyers and expert witnesses could go the way of the Siberian tiger. Our primary product becomes a written report that can aid the parties in their plea negotiations, by elucidating the nexus between an individual’s psychological dynamics or mental state and a specific legal issue (such as specific intent to commit a crime or risk to public safety).

The entire debate is available online.

Hat tip to the Concurring Opinions blog for alerting me to this debate. Photo credits: Amber Rhea, sign on old Suntrust building in downtown Decatur, Illinois; Zoo Stream, Siberian tiger (Creative Commons license).

News roundup

Eastern nations importing Western justice practices

I've seen several accounts lately of Asian countries importing Western criminal justice practices. In China, which has a continental (or inquisitorial) model like that used in most of Europe, the Canadian Bar Association is collaborating with Chinese lawyers to advance the adversarial practices used in Canada and the United States. The Lawyers Weekly of Canada has that story. Meanwhile, in Japan, courts are gearing up to implement what for the West is an old standard – jury duty. In preparation for the January 2009 launch date, a former New York Legal Aid attorney is training Japanese defense lawyers in how to address ordinary citizens in court. That story is one of a series of special reports on "Toyko Justice" at New York City's NY1 news service.

New DOJ report: Sexual victimization of prisoners

The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics has released findings from a national survey of more than 23,000 prisoners at 146 state and federal institutions. Overall, about 4.5% of prisoners report sexual victimization, more than half committed by staff. The special report, required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, is available online, as is a summary press release.

$10 million law & neuroscience project

How should the courts respond to new brain-scanning techniques that have potentially far-reaching legal implications?

A $10 million, 3-year grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation is bringing scholars together to help answer this question by integrating neuroscience developments into the U.S. legal system.

The project will begin by synthesizing existing research and identifying gaps. Then, studies and conferences will be funded to fill those gaps. One end goal is an educational primer for judges, differentiating evidence-based techniques from those that lack scientific validity and should not be admitted in court.

More information is available at the project's website.

Utah court: OK to forcibly medicate accused kidnapper

One of two defendants in the highly publicized Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case in Utah can be forcibly medicated in an attempt to make her competent to stand trial, the Utah Supreme Court has ruled.

Wanda Eileen Barzee has been at the Utah State Hospital for more than three years without making any progress toward competency. Claiming she is the "mother of Zion" and receives messages from God through her television, she shuns treatment and refuses medication.

Friday's ruling upheld an opinion by a district court judge last year that administering antipsychotic medication would be in Barzee's best medical interest.

A key bone of contention is the expected efficacy of antipsychotic medications. State doctors claim that antipsychotic drugs have a 70% chance of making Barzee competent. Defense medical experts counter that the odds were closer to 20%.

Under Sell v. United States, for a defendant to be forcibly medicated to restore competency, a court must find that important government interests are at stake, involuntary medication will significantly further those interests by being "substantially likely" to restore the defendant's competency, the medication is substantially unlikely to have negative side effects, and the medication is medically appropriate.

Barzee and Brian David Mitchell are awaiting trial in the kidnapping and sexual assault of then-14-year-old Elizabeth in 2002. Police say Mitchell, a self-proclaimed prophet, planned to make Elizabeth one of his wives.

The Salt Lake City Tribune and the Deseret Morning News have coverage; the high court opinion is available online here.

Postscript: Judge Judith Atherton's 2005 competency decision in codefendant Brian David Mitchell's case, a thoughtful analysis of competency as it pertains to religiosity, is online HERE.

Georgia high court backtracks on ruling overturning sex offender residency restrictions

As you may recall from my previous blog posts, last month the Georgia Supreme Court overturned that state's residency restrictions against sex offenders. The law bans registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches and other areas where children congregate.

But in a press release issued last week, the high court announced a "substitute opinion" drastically limiting the scope of the ruling. The new language limits the ruling to homeowners only, and only to the extent that residency restrictions might cause a "taking of [their] property without just and adequate compensation."

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has the story here. The original decision in Mann v. the Georgia Department of Corrections is here.

Hat tip to How Appealing.

Cautionary notes on last week's sentencing reforms

While some are heralding last week's federal sentencing reforms as the biggest civil rights development since Brown v. Board of Education back in 1954, others are less sanguine. The excellent Sentencing Law & Policy blog summarizes two cautionary opinion pieces, one by James Oliphant of the Chicago Tribune and the other by Adam Liptak of the New York Times.

Oliphant's piece, "New drug rules won't crack many jail doors," starts out:

When the U.S. Sentencing Commission last week reduced sentences for imprisoned crack cocaine offenders -- reversing years of policy that treated crack far differently from powder cocaine -- the Justice Department and police groups bitterly criticized the action, warning of a flood of criminals rushing out onto America's streets....

But many experts say the reality is not so dramatic. Fewer than 3,000 prisoners nationwide will be immediately eligible for the relief. All have already served considerable time. Each eligible prisoner will have to petition the court for freedom -- and the Justice Department can oppose those petitions. Few offenders with violent histories are likely to be released.

Adam Liptak's column, "Whittling Away, but Leaving a Gap," begins:

There was an avalanche of sentencing news last week. The Supreme Court gave trial judges more power to show mercy, the United States Sentencing Commission gave almost 20,000 prisoners doing time on crack cocaine charges a good shot at early release, and even President Bush commuted a crack sentence.

The net effect: tinkering. The United States justice system remains, by international standards at least, exceptionally punitive. And nothing that happened last week will change that.

Top criminologists take public policy stances

In a special "gala" issue of Criminology & Public Policy, 27 of the most influential criminologists alive take policy policy stances on issues ranging from juvenile curfews and the death penalty to sex offender residency restrictions and police gang units. The goal of each invited essay was to suggest that enough empirical evidence exists on the topic to support one specific recommendation, and to provide a summary of that evidence. Unfortunately, the essays are not available online, but I'm sure that if you are interested in a topic you can Google the author and obtain a reprint.

The recommendations include:

IMPOSE AN IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM ON EXECUTIONS
JAMES R. ACKER

ABOLISH JUVENILE CURFEWS
KENNETH ADAMS

ABOLISH LIFETIME BANS FOR EX-FELONS
SHAWN D. BUSHWAY & GARY SWEETEN

ABANDON FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT POLICIES
ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD

MAKE REHABILITATION CORRECTIONS' GUIDING PARADIGM
FRANCIS T. CULLEN

EXPAND THE USE OF POLICE GANG UNITS
SCOTT H. DECKER

END NATURAL LIFE SENTENCES FOR JUVENILES
JEFFREY FAGAN

MAKE POLICE OVERSIGHT INDEPENDENT AND TRANSPARENT
JACK R. GREENE

BAN THE BOX TO PROMOTE EX-OFFENDER EMPLOYMENT
JESSICA S. HENRY, JAMES B. JACOBS

TARGET JUVENILE NEEDS TO REDUCE DELINQUENCY
PETER R. JONES, BRIAN R. WYANT

COLLECT AND RELEASE DATA ON COERCIVE POLICE ACTIONS
ROBERT J. KANE

MANDATE THE ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF POLICE INTERROGATIONS
RICHARD A. LEO, KIMBERLY D. RICHMAN

IMPLEMENT AND USE COURT PERFORMANCE MEASURES
BRIAN J. OSTROM, ROGER A. HANSON

JUST SAY NO TO D.A.R.E.
DENNIS P. ROSENBAUM
(One of my personal favoritess; it's high time to abolish harmful "Just Say No" messages targeting children.)

TRANSFER THE UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM FROM THE FBI TO THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
RICHARD ROSENFELD

USE PROBATION TO PREVENT MURDER
LAWRENCE W. SHERMAN
(This is a provocative essay on forecasting homicide.)

REVISE POLICIES MANDATING OFFENDER DNA COLLECTION
RALPH B. TAYLOR, JOHN S. GOLDKAMP, DORIS WEILAND, CLAIRISSA BREEN, R. MARIE GARCIA, LAWRENCE A. PRESLEY, BRIAN R. WYANT

ELIMINATE RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS FOR SEX OFFENDERS
JEFFERY T. WALKER

PROTECT INDIVIDUAL PUNISHMENT DECISIONS FROM MANDATORY PENALTIES
FRANKLIN E. ZIMRING

Blanket ban on alcohol verboten, court rules

For those of you who are involved with parolees and probationers: How many times have you seen a blanket prohibition on alcohol consumption as a condition of someone's supervised release? Do you ever see the prohibition imposed on people who have no documented history of alcohol abuse, with random urinalyses to ensure compliance? I see it quite often.

Such blanket prohibitions will be a thing of the past if the courts follow the law as dictated today by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Perhaps emboldened by the Supreme Court's dramatic rulings earlier this week on individualized sentencing (which some are calling as monumental to civil rights as was Brown v. Board of Education a half-century ago), the Ninth Circuit today extended the logic of individualized sentencing to alcohol bans.

The case of U.S. v. Betts involves white-collar criminal Marcus Betts, who accepted bribes to increase people's credit ratings while he worked for the TransUnion credit agency.

The judge imposed as a condition of his probation that he abstain from alcohol, despite acknowledging on the record that there was no evidence that Betts had a liquor problem.

Explaining its logic, the appellate court wrote:

"[There is nothing] wrong generally with supervised release conditions requiring abstention from alcohol. Many people commit crimes when they drink too much and such conditions are often necessary to protect the public and provide correctional treatment. We have upheld abstention conditions where there is some indication in the record of a problem of abuse…. But the decision has to be individualized, not a matter of policy application without regard to the individual defendant."

Those of you who read my blog regularly will recall that only three months ago, the Ninth Circuit held that parolees cannot be required to attend 12-step treatment programs. More on that ruling is here.

The Appellate Law & Practice and Sentencing Law & Policy blogs both have posts on today's ruling, which is also available online. An interesting Newsweek magazine story on the import of this week's U.S. Supreme Court's sentencing rulings is here.

Helping prisoners get disability funds

The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs has issued a report on correctional programs that help prisoners apply for federal disability payments so that their treatment services will not be interrupted upon their release from custody.

The report, "Helping Inmates Obtain Federal Disability Benefits," examines programs in Texas and New York state prisons and a county jail in Philadelphia. All three programs help severely ill offenders qualify and apply for federal benefits that, in turn, enable them to get necessary treatment in their local communities upon release.

The report provides practical information for mental health and medical staff in correctional settings as well as prison counselors, correctional administrators, and probation and parole officers.

It is available online.

Exiles in the promised land

Sex offenders living as trolls under Miami bridge

The New Times of Miami has an amazing update on the exile colony of sex offenders living under the Julia Tuttle freeway in Miami (a community I blogged about back in April); there's a companion slide show that is worth checking out. The story begins like this:

Another one showed up last night. Around 10 — just before curfew — a car rolled in under the bridge and the newcomer got out with his wife. She hugged and kissed him goodbye, pulled the car out along the road, and disappeared into a sea of headlights. . . . Until last week, "Big Man" was serving a four-year sentence for cocaine possession. . . . He was looking forward to leaving prison and reuniting with his wife, until he got the news: Instead of going home, he'd be living under a bridge, a parole commission officer told him. That's because 23 years ago, when he was 19 years old, Big Man was charged with sexual assault on a minor. (He claims the victim was his girlfriend and that it was consensual.)

The story continues here. The companion slide show is here. Also see my September post on how this relates to the history of banishment in Western culture.

California Supreme Court to hear Jessica's Law challenge

In the wake of recent court rulings overturning residency restrictions for sex offenders in Georgia and in one Florida city, the California Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to review the contentious topic as well.

I've blogged previously about this case, in which four registered sex offenders argue that it is irrational and illegal to apply residency restrictions to ex-convicts like themselves, whose sex crimes did not involve children. Three were convicted of rape and the fourth was convicted of indecent exposure.

Jessica's Law makes most urban areas off limits to sex offenders paroled from prison since the law's enactment on Nov. 7, 2006. Opponents say this is forcing ex-offenders to abandon their homes and families, and to choose between prison and homelessness.

In response to the law, about half of those covered by it have declared themselves transients, claiming either that they are homeless or that they change residences frequently. Although self-identified transients must report to their parole officers each day, it becomes harder to monitor them and to provide them with necessary treatment.

"We could potentially be making the world more dangerous rather than less dangerous," said Gerry Blasingame, a therapist and former chair of the California Coalition on Sexual Offending.

Because of the potential danger in encouraging sex offenders to disappear, prosecutors in Iowa have been lobbying for the repeal of that state's similar residency restrictions law. "Most legislators know in their hearts that the law is no good and a waste of time, but they’re afraid of the politics of it," said a spokesman for the Iowa prosecutors' association.

"It defies common sense to argue that public safety is somehow served by forcing sex offender registrants into homelessness - to sleep in cars, in parks, near schools and on the streets - disconnected from their support networks," said Ernest Galvan, a lawyer for the four men contesting the California law, in recently filed court papers.

The San Francisco Chronicle has more coverage of the case (titled E.J. on Habeas Corpus, S156933) here. More on the problem of sex offenders declaring transiency is here. The Sentencing Law & Policy blog has additional coverage and links here.

Pay-to-stay jails critiqued

Have you heard of pay-to-stay jails? They're quietly appearing around the country, in communities with enough affluent scofflaws to support their existence. For a fee, criminals can stay in more comfortable lockups with better food, access to cell phones, and other cushy amenities.

The current issue of the Michigan Law Review's First Impressions series focuses on this latest example of the ever-increasing disparities between the rich and the poor in the U.S. criminal justice system. The thought-provoking articles – all available online - include:

Pay-to-Stay in California Jails and the Value of Systemic Self-Embarassment by Robert Weisberg, Stanford Law School

It Could Happen to "You": Pay-to-Stay Jail Upgrades by Kim Shayo Buchanan, USC Gould School of Law

The Dirty Little Secrets about Pay-to-Stay by Laurie L. Levenson, Director of Center for Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School Los Angeles and Mary Gordon

Government Entrepreneurship: How COP, Direct Supervision, and a Business Plan Helped Solve Santa Ana's Crime Problems by Police Chief Paul Walters, Santa Ana, California, and Russell Davis, Jail Administrator, Santa Ana

Why the County Jail Is Often a Better Choice by Shawn Chapman Holley, private practice attorney

A Virtuous State Would Not Assign Correctional Housing Based on Ability to Pay by Bradley W. Moore, JD Candidate, University of Michigan Law School