Exciting new sex offender treatment model

Today, dear readers, is an exciting day. It marks the official release of a groundbreaking new book on sex offender treatment, one that may signal a pivotal turning point away from punitive practices toward a recognition of offenders' essential human dignity and the universality of crime desistance.

Scholars D. Richard Laws and Tony Ward have taken on a huge task in Desistance from Sex Offending: Alternatives to Throwing Away the Keys. They hope to bring mainstream criminological theories about crime desistance to an insular, risk-obsessed fringe of forensic psychology that has remained remarkably uninterested in the fact that offenders desist from crime, or the process through which that occurs.

Desistance provides a superb, highly readable overview of the criminological literature on desistance, the age-crime curve, and offender reintegration research, focusing heavily on the seminal works of Sampson and Laub and Shadd Maruna. The authors propose the Good Lives Model as a theory that can bridge the looming chasm between desistance theory and forensic psychology practice with sex offenders.

The voices of dissent against the dominant, pathologizing discourse of deviance are growing louder. The publication of this trailblazing book is yet another in a series of signals that the reign of penal harm may be losing steam, creating opportunities for implementing progressive reforms.

Desistance is essential reading for clinicians, researchers, academicians, attorneys, and anyone interested in the application of contemporary social science theory on desistance to sex offender rehabilitation.

The timing is propitious, coinciding as it does with next week's annual conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) in Phoenix, Arizona. At least one conference seminar, by Pamela Yates, Ph.D., will focus on applying the Good Lives Model to sex offender treatment. If you are attending the conference, buy this book early before it sells out.

We can only hope that the spirit of reform embodied in Desistance truly catches on, rather than being coopted by the entrenched forces of risk management.

NOTE: I am writing more detailed and formal reviews of Desistance for publication, and will link to those as soon as they are available. Also see my online review at Amazon (and please, as always, remember to click on “yes” if you like the review).

Prominent forensic psychologist hired in Ford Hood massacre case

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

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

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

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

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

Military suicides skyrocketing

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

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

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

Hat tip: Ken Pope

Rare juror speaks out after sexual predator trial

Civil commitment unfair, says law-and-order Floridian

Juror Number 6 is a conservative, law-and-order Republican. But she was appalled when she realized that in the United States, someone can be indefinitely detained not for what he has done, but for what he might do in the future.

Kathy Martin spoke to a news reporter after she and her five colleagues refused to civilly commit a convicted sex offender. Robert Richard Sanzone, age 34, had finished the prison term imposed in 2004 for having sex with one 15-year-old girl and trying to coax a second girl into sexual intimacies.

Martin said that she was struck by the similarities between the 2002 film Minority Report and Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act, under which sex offenders who are determined to still be a danger to society may be held indefinitely for so-called treatment.

"I didn't realize in America you could be given an indefinite sentence," the registered nurse told reporter Richard Prior of Florida's St. Augustine Record. “I'm not a bleeding-heart liberal, but I would like to think someone can't incarcerate me because they think I might do something."

Martin said she and the other members of the 5-woman, 1-man jury were skeptical of the reliability of the Static-99 actuarial risk assessment tool.

She also expressed concern about civilly committing someone for having consensual sex with a teenager.

"This is supposed to be about violent sexual predators, and I kept waiting for the violence to come up. I kept waiting for one of the witnesses to say he threw (them) against the wall or pushed (them) to the ground or pulled a knife. When I realized that wasn't going to happen ... well, I listened politely to the closing argument, but by that time I'd made up my mind."

Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act was passed in 1998 after Juan Carlos Chavez raped, beat, dismembered, and murdered 9-year-old Jimmy Rye in 1995. Chavez is currently awaiting execution on Florida's death row. The Ryce Act parallels sexually violent predator civil commitment laws in 20 U.S. states.

The articulate juror said she understands why horrific crimes lead to new laws, but she doesn't like that knee-jerk practice.

"When a brutal case occurs, the public wants to do something. It makes us feel better that we passed a law. This law has unintended consequences that can come back and bite someone's behind. I think these laws are just feel-good measures."

Two psychologists, Amy Swan and Mary Anne Etheridge, testified in favor of civil ccommitment for Sanzone. Dr. Etheridge diagnosed Sanzone with "fetishism" -- in this case toward underwear -- as well as the ubiquitous antisocial personality disorder.

Psychologist Deborah Leporowski, the lone defense witness, disputed the prosecution psychologists' estimation of Sanzone's risk, and said many of his early problems could be attributed to teenage impulsivity and immaturity.

Sanzone will remain on special sex offender probation for many years, and will be banned from schools, playgrounds, or other places where children congregate.

Richard Prior's fascinating interview with juror Kathy Martin is HERE.

"Abandon ethics, all ye who enter here"

Special ethics exemption sought for SVP work

Concern is mounting among many in the fields of forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, and law about ethical violations by some practitioners in the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) arena. But instead of calling for greater adherence to ethical practice, some are floating a radically different idea: Abandon professional ethics altogether.

[A] good-faith, case-by-case, consequential ethics approach should be used that balances the greatest good for the greatest number without trampling unduly on individual rights and each citizen’s constitutionally protected liberty interests.

This "consequential" approach will eliminate bias and give the civil commitment process "ethical authenticity," contend Shoba Sreenivasan, Allen Frances, and Linda Weinberger in the current issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

Sexually Violent Predator evaluations lend themselves to ethical slippage because of the laws' requirement that in order to be eligible for civil commitment, a convicted sex offender must suffer from a "mental abnormality" that makes him "likely" (interpreted in most states other than California to mean a risk of 51 percent or more) to commit another sexually violent offense.

These legal requirements create a slippery slope when an offender does not have a bona fide mental disorder and/or does not score high on risk assessment instruments, but the evaluator still believes the offender needs to be civilly committed to protect the public.

But this is no "puzzling ethics quandary." It's no different from such pulls in other forensic arenas. For example, a forensic practitioner might opine that:

• a young man who experienced a brief, drug-induced psychotic break meets the M'Naghten standard of insanity, because the prosecutor and the defense attorney have worked out a deal in which he won't have to go to prison

• a victim of an industrial accident meets the criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder because she needs counseling and the corporation has deep pockets

• a mother in a child custody dispute has "parental alienation syndrome" because she appears angry and vindictive toward her husband

Each of these evaluators is overstepping, and usurping the role of the trier of fact (the judge or jury). It is not the expert's job to decide whether Sexually Violent Predator laws are morally just. It is not our job to balance the goals of public protection with individual civil liberties. Those duties fall to courts, legislatures, and voters.

As I teach my students in Forensic Psychology 101, when we enter the courtroom our job is a simple one: To assist the trier of fact in understanding the psychological science of relevance to the case at hand. Nothing more, nothing less.

The authors complain that the courts have given us insufficient guidance in this task. But, welcome to the forensic world. Statutory and case law is often intentionally vague, to allow for unique situations or changing circumstances. The law's inherent vagueness about mental abnormality and risk does not create an ethics quandary, much less one that merits abandonment of our ethics codes.

It is ludicrous to think that the solution to problems in SVP practice is an anything-goes approach that essentially rests upon the good intentions of individual evaluators. Most of us probably do have good intentions. But self-serving blinders make it hard to be objective. That is precisely why professionals have established deontological, or rule-based, ethics standards (which the authors refer to as "normative ethics").

Indeed, these authors reveal their implicit bias through their choice of examples. Instead of focusing on the widespread exaggeration of risk or manufacturing of bogus psychiatric diagnoses, they condemn "long and confusing discussions of Bayes' theorem" and label as biased the evaluator who emphasizes limitations in our ability to accurately predict risk.

Actually, that is precisely our job. We are ethically obligated to present the limitations of our models, which are significant. To fail to do so is to succumb to what an Australian judge described as gross product enthusiasm:

Amongst the many factors which may lead an expert witness into error is a malady which, if encountered in a new car salesperson, might be described as gross product enthusiasm. Some witnesses seem to become so fervid about the potential of their chosen discipline that they lose sight of its limitations and are borne by their enthusiasm into making claims that could not be supported by more sober and objective assessment of the available evidence.*

As this judge implies, the testimony of expert witnesses should be given little weight when it amounts to confirmatory bias in disguise, resting on a paper-thin layer of exploratory or contradictory research that has not been peer reviewed, published, or replicated, and is of unknown reliability or validity.

I will say it once again: Our only role in court is to assist the trier of fact to accurately apply reliable and valid science to the case at hand. And that includes acknowledging the science's limitations.

Science in principle is distinguished from the law, religion, and politics by its allegiance to scientific inquiry, or the search for replicable cause-effect relationships. The ethics of our discipline therefore rely upon the principles of objectivity and transparency. In contrast, Sreenivasan et al’s ethics of "consequentialism" elevate expedience. This might be fine in the fields of law or religion. But, as a learned colleague said, "expedience is the bane of Science."

SVP trials pit David against Goliath. The dice are loaded against sex offenders facing civil commitment, due to the onerous nature of their past crimes, inequalities in legal resources, and even the very label of predator, which conjures a beastly monster. Condemning as "biased" efforts by the defense to point out the scientific weaknesses of the state's evidence would only increase this monumental power imbalance.

But that's no "puzzling ethics quandary." Any more than psychologists are faced with a puzzling ethics quandary when they decide to participate in government torture for the greater good.

Because we have professional rules, or ethics codes, the psychologists who allegedly tortured detainees at Guantanamo now await licensing board actions in their respective states of Ohio and New York.

That's the way it is, and the way it should remain.

Acknowledgment: In crafting this essay, I consulted with more than a dozen learned colleagues, who helped me to ponder these critical issues of ethics. Thanks to all of you, and a special thanks to Robert Halon, who gave the matter a great deal of thought. It’s a privilege to count such wise individuals among my professional colleagues.

Photo credit (Creative Commons license): Klearchos Kapoutsis, Baba Vida fortress, Bulgaria, the place of the hangings.

*R. v. Hiller, ACTSC 50, 25 (Australia, 2003), as cited in Psychological Science in the Courtroom, Consensus and Controversy, page 255.

BLOGGER RESPONSES:

Steve Erickson @ Crime & Consequences

Mark Bennett @ Defending People

Emma B. @ Psychology & Crime News (UK)

The Social Network debunks Facebook origin myth

With the box-office success of The Social Network, the whole world will know that Facebook emerged not from an attempt by a college kid to connect with his friends, as the origin myth has it, but from a misogynist online prank.

The title speaks to the profound irony underlying this almost accidental invention: The man who invented the world's largest and most successful social network is devoid of social intelligence.

The central plot device is flash-forwards to founder Mark Zuckerberg's testimony at a legal deposition. Despite the obvious distortion of how a deposition works, the device works to remind us of the movie's essential accuracy. And, indeed, it had better be accurate. As unflattering a portrayal as it gives, and as wealthy as Zuckerberg is, the filmmakers certainly ran a risk of being sued for slander if they made a misstep. This legal risk alone makes the producers heroic.

Movie review continues HERE.

Charging youth as adults costly and unjust, study finds

Waiving youth into adult courts for prosecution is unscientific, racially biased, and may increase crime, according to a Maryland study released today by the Just Kids Partnership to End the Automatic Prosecution of Youth as Adults.

The researchers tracked 135 youths who were charged as adults in Baltimore. They found that more than two-thirds were ultimately sent back to the juvenile system or had their cases dismissed outright, but not before spending an average of five months in adult jail. Only 10 percent ended up in adult prison. African American youth were disproportionately likely to be transferred to adult court.

The study comes as Maryland weighs whether or not to spend more than $100 million on a new facility for youth awaiting trial in adult court.

Based on their findings, the researchers recommend reducing the prosecution of youths in adult courts, and instead providing teenagers with more treatment opportunities.

"Youth who go into the adult correction system are significantly more likely to commit further and more violent crime than their peers who are treated as juveniles," they state.

The Just Kids Partnership is a consortium consisting of the Public Justice Center, Community Law in Action and United Parents of Incarcerated Children and Youth.

The full report is available HERE. An executive summary is HERE. Additional background is available at the Just Kids Partnership website.

Reader feedback on latest actuarial article

I want to draw readers' attention to a reaction I received today from Brian Abbott, a psychologist and a leading expert on actuarial risk assessment of sex offenders. He has posted an insightful comment on last week's blog essay, "Static redux: Sandgropers jumping off rickety ship." Whereas I was sanguine in my commentary on a new article critiquing the Static-99 family of instruments ("Alice in Actuarial-Land" by Shoba Sreenivasan, Linda Weinberger, Allen Frances, and Sarah Cusworth-Walker), Dr. Abbott expressed dismay. He sees it as a bold and dangerous attempt to legitimize the pseudoscientific clinical-actuarial approach. As he points out, with actuarial instruments forecasting lower risks of sexual recidivism, government evaluators are finding it increasingly difficult to predict the high levels of danger required for civil commitment. They may thus resort to pseudoscientific logic to inflate sex offenders' risk scores. Dr. Abbott's comment is located HERE. I invite you all to share your comments as well.

Courts should admit if "emperor wears no clothes"

SVP evidence must meet legal admissibility standards,
cautions high court justice in Washington

The Supreme Court of Washington has made it easier for some civilly committed Sexually Violent Predators (SVP's) to challenge their detentions. In a 5-4 ruling, the high court struck down a state law restricting what types of evidence a sex offender may introduce to show he is no longer dangerous.

Under the invalidated law, an offender could only petition for release based on reduced risk due to either treatment or permanent physiological changes. An offender could not claim, for example, that he no longer met the legal criteria for civil commitment (having a mental disorder that made him more likely than not to reoffend sexually) based solely on advancing age or maturation, even though these factors are strongly associated with desistance.

Most intriguing was the concurring opinion of Justice Richard B. Sanders. The justice rebuked the trial judge for abdicating his role as gatekeeper to ensure that scientific evidence admitted in court is reliable and valid. The trial court accepted the testimony of the government experts without considering whether they were scientifically valid, while summarily dismissing the opinions of the lone defense expert, Sanders noted.

In his declaration for the defense, psychiatrist Lee Coleman had challenged the science underlying the prosecution witnesses' risk assessments, diagnoses, and opinions. In particular, he disputed the legitimacy of the makeshift diagnosis of "paraphilia, not otherwise specified," i.e., "sexual activity with non-consenting females" assigned to convicted rapist David McCuistion:

Dr. [Carole] DeMarco claims that 'Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified (Nonconsent) is an accepted diagnosis among practitioners knowledgeable about sexual offenders.' I believe it would be more accurate to say that the only practitioners who use this label are those who perform SVP evaluations. But regardless of how many use it, the so-called 'diagnosis' is obviously nothing more than doublespeak for the crime of rape. If this is the best the evaluators are capable of doing … surely it means that the entire evaluation process is a sham created to fulfill legal and legislative agendas.

As a 'dynamic risk factor' (characteristics that could change over time, as opposed to the static nature of one's criminal past), she wrote that Mr. McCuistion 'continues to associate with individuals who have an antisocial attitude and engage in a high level of fault finding with SCC rules and policies indicating an antisocial lifestyle.' Given the universal recognition by SVP inmates that the evaluation and treatment program is based on a law that has no recognized basis in science or psychology, it is totally unacceptable to equate 'fault finding with SCC rules and policies' with risk of sexual re-offending.

Commented Justice Sanders:

The trial court accepted the State experts' testimony without considering whether they were valid under Frye [the evidence admissibility standard in Washington] but proceeded to reject Dr. Coleman’s testimony out of hand:

'Dr. Coleman’s report and conclusion are contrary to the conclusions reached by previous examiners of Mr. McCuistion, and is essentially a re-argument of the original finding that Mr. McCuistion is a sexually violent predator. That Dr. Coleman disagrees with past examiners and fact-finders does not, itself, make his opinion the correct one.'

And yet that doesn’t make his opinion wrong either….

Where a person is deprived of his or her freedom based upon opinion testimony lacking scientific credibility, reliability, and accepted methodology, courts must step forward and announce with the courage of a small child that the Emperor wears no clothes.

No clothes, huh? Is it possible that the times they are a-changin'?

The majority opinion, concurring opinion, and dissent (saying the administrative costs and burdens of this ruling are too high) are all available online. Dr. Coleman's declaration is attached as Appendix A to Justice Sanders' concurring opinion.

Mother California: Essential prison reading

Imagine serving 30 years in prison with no end in sight. Would you survive? Would you not just survive, but actually grow as a person?

While serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole ("the other death sentence") in California's massive prison system, Kenneth Hartman morphed from a violent killer, "a 19-year-old thug from the blasted wasteland of South Los Angeles' urban, post-industrial decay," to an award-winning author, philosopher, and prison reformer.

The subtitle of his autobiography is "A Story of Redemption Behind Bars." But Mother California tells a story much bigger than one man's personal odyssey. Through Hartman, we witness how three decades of irrational, tough-on-crime rhetoric has plunged California's prisons into an abyss of despair, violence, and criminal recidivism, all the while emptying the state's financial coffers.

Take Christmas. When Hartman first came to prison, in the early 1980s, the cellblocks were decked out in holiday lights, wreaths, and trees. Prisoners decorated their cells with holiday cards from loved ones, the Salvation Army donated candy and nuts, and, in the visiting room, "one of the old guys dressed up as Santa Claus for pictures with the kids and the young wives."

Within 15 years, holidays had been banished. Santa was gone, along with the decorations and treats. Every day resembled the last in its dreary monotony. "The walls are the same unadorned concrete every day of the year. My first Christmas at Tehachapi, one of the guards got on the public address system to tell us about the great meal he would soon be enjoying, the time he would be spending with his family. We didn't deserve to be with our families, he ranted, we were just where we belonged and have a hearty Merry fucking Christmas."

Watching helplessly as his beloved weight-training equipment is loaded onto the back of a flatbed truck, Hartman realizes "how far the advocates of punishment-for-the-sake-of-inflicting pain will go to turn the clock back" and erase the progressive reforms won by prisoners during the 1970s.

Hartman articulately chronicles the divergent impacts of this tough-on-crime politicking on daily life in prison. At Tehachapi, one of the newer prisons, guards are hyper-aggressive and controlling. At Lancaster, in contrast, the guards have ceded control, locking themselves in their control centers and allowing unchecked chaos and violence. The chapel becomes a crack house, the odors of marijuana and pruno (home-made liquor) fill the air, and almost everyone is high and destitute.

The golden triad

That is how Hartman, in one of his many philosophical essays on the prison system, labels the three proven ingredients to reducing criminal recidivism:

• Increased and enhanced visiting to build and maintain family ties
• Higher education
• Quality drug and alcohol treatment

Despite (or perhaps because of?) their effectiveness, the special-interest prison lobby has vigorously sabotaged all three, he writes:

In my 29 years, visiting has deteriorated from a slightly unpleasant experience to a hostile and traumatic acid bath that quite effectively destroys family ties.

Higher education is virtually nonexistent but for those few with the substantial resources needed to purchase it. In those rare cases where innovative ways have been found to bring education back into the prisons the special interest groups have mounted vicious campaigns to terminate the programs.

The opposition to drug and alcohol treatment, much more widely supported in the body politic, is subtler. Using the proven method of compulsory participation by the least amenable, those programs that are instituted are crippled in the normal chaos of prison.

All of this opposition stands behind the banner of protecting victims' rights, as if only the desire for revenge by past victims of crime matters, over even the potential losses of future victims.

The Honor Program

Determined to put his accumulated wisdom and principles into practice, Hartman worked with other prisoners and non-custody staff to design a special program at Lancaster Prison called the Honor Yard. Founded in 2000, the program provides a separate community for 600 men who have committed to living productive lives in which they give back to the community and make amends for past wrongdoings. They must commit to abstaining from gangs, violence, drugs, and racism.

In its first six years of operation, the Honor Program functioned without a single major violent incident, and saved the state millions of dollars. In the wake of its success, state Sen. Gloria Romero sponsored Senate Bill 299 to expand the program to other prisons. Gov. Arnold Schwarzegger, in his infinite wisdom, vetoed the bill.

Hartman's dream, according to a news article on the program, is to be able to live the remainder of his life in a violence-free environment where he can devote himself to his writing. One of his essays won a $10,000 writing prize, with the money going to his wife and daughter, conceived before California took away conjugal visit privileges from lifers. He is currently involved in a campaign to eliminate life sentences.

Instead of reading endless meaningless studies on psychopathy and such, we should spend more time in the real world, listening to articulate autodidacts like Hartman.

Kenneth Hartman's philosophical essays on prison are online HERE. More on the Honor Program, and efforts to save and expand it, is HERE. More on lifers in U.S. prisons is HERE.

If you enjoyed this review, I would appreciate your taking a quick moment to let me know by visiting my Amazon book review and click on "YES," this review was helpful.

Hat tip: Jules Burstein

Domestic violence risk training in Oregon

On October 15, Northwest Forensic Institute is presenting the latest in its series of high-quality forensic continuing education programs. It features Tonia Nicholls, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of British Columbia and co-author of several violence risk assessment and prevention guides. Dr. Nicholls has provided dozens of violence risk trainings around the world. This one is titled, "An introduction to domestic violence risk assessment: Evidence to inform your practice."

Despite our preoccupation with 'stranger danger' (e.g., child abductions, stranger-rapes) it is a well-established fact that we are more likely to be assaulted or killed by a family member than by anyone else. Violence in families is so common as to be considered ubiquitous. Canadian and American data reveal similar rates of violence against women: around 1 in 5 women have ever experienced intimate partner violence and 2 to 4 percent of women suffered severe violence in the past year. The lifetime incidence rate for any form of domestic violence is approximately 19 percent. The lifetime incidence for severe or injurious domestic violence is about 8 percent.

Accurate risk assessments with perpetrators of intimate partner abuse are important for a variety of diverse reasons. A proper assessment should lead to informed safety planning for the victim(s) and case management for the perpetrator. Good risk evaluations can help to ensure the appropriate division of scarce resources to those individuals and families in greatest need and prevent the disruption of intact families who might actually suffer unnecessarily as a result of intrusive interventions. The information gleaned from a good evaluation can also be essential for assisting victims and their advocates in relevant civil (e.g., divorce or custody disputes) and criminal proceedings.

The training is co-sponsored by the Portland State University and will earn mental health professionals 6 hours of CE credits; accreditation for 6 hours of CLE for attorneys is pending. The fee is $175 for professionals and $75 for students. For more information and to register, visit the Institute's WEBSITE or call (503) 413-0685.

Garrido to undergo competency evaluation

The attorney for Phillip Garrido, the man who gained worldwide infamy last year in the alleged abduction of Jaycee Dugard, has raised a doubt as to whether Garrido is competent to stand trial.

"This is a fundamental fairness issue," his attorney, Susan Gellman, a deputy public defender in El Dorado County, told a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. "What we're talking about here is whether or not a citizen is able to make a decision about his case. When someone wants to go to trial for crazy reasons, or not go to trial for crazy reasons, that person is not competent." She noted persistent trouble communicating with Garrido during her more than 20 meetings with him at the jail.

As I explained in my analysis of the case in the Guardian of UK last August, psychiatric issues -- including competency and perhaps insanity -- are sure to be prominent in this case due to Garrido's history of religious delusions. Through the wonders of the Internet, I wrote at the time, we can "travel back in time and enter his mind, via rambling blog posts about voices in his head, mind control, and religious delusions of himself as the savior." (Amazingly, his contemporaneous "Voices Revealed" blog is still online, for those of you who want to take a gander.)

At Friday's court hearing in El Dorado County, Judge Douglas Phimister commented that he had spotted strange behavior during his limited observations of the defendant in court. At times, he noted, "Garrido aggressively scribbled notes in a pad even though little was going on in court."

Demian Bulwa's San Francisco Chronicle account is HERE. My August 2009 analysis in the Guardian of UK, "Jaycee Dugard, transfixed by a monster," is HERE. My Sept. 3, 2009 followup post on the case, "Sex-Registry Flaws Stand Out," has more background and links.

Photo credit: Rich Pedroncelli, AP

Static redux: Sandgropers jumping off rickety ship

Inventors of actuarial tools to assess sex offender risk recently described their process as "somewhat like rebuilding a ship at sea, continually replacing one plank at a time when we sprang a leak."

But while they viewed this method "as a strength, not a problem," others might reasonably regard staying aboard such a ship as a sure-fire way to drown.

Among those jumping ship are the Western Australians. Courts in Australia's largest state are increasingly rebuffing the Static-99, the world's leading actuarial tool for assessing sex offender risk.

In the latest of a string of cases, Justice John McKechnie has rejected an attempt by the Director of Public Prosecutions to civilly commit a convicted sex offender based on the man's high Static score. In his ruling, the judge criticized the "uncritical acceptance" of actuarial risk tools, saying they do not take into account reductions in risk that can accrue from prison-based treatment programs.

The ruling in the case of Leslie Fred Free is part of a "national backlash" against the Static by courts as well as legal and psychological researchers, according to a news report at oneperth.com.au. The report quotes Bernadette McSherry, a law professor at Monash University who has been tracking cases in which Australian courts have rejected the Static-99.

Many question whether an instrument developed in North America is relevant or reliable for forensic use Down Under. In a 2007 decision, another Western Australian judge focused on the problem with applying the Static-99 to aboriginal offenders. Noted Judge Hasluck in the case of Robert Mangolamara, a young aboriginal man:

[T]he facts and assumptions underlying the assessment tools and related manuals have not been proved…. Moreover, [because] the tools were not devised for and do not necessarily take account of the social circumstances of indigenous Australians in remote communities, I harbour grave reservations as to whether a person of the respondent's background can be easily fitted within the categories of appraisal presently allowed for by the assessment tools.….

Sandgropers, as Western Australians are known, think of themselves as especially good-looking and intelligent. But even here in the less enlightened United States the mainstream forensic community is expressing growing skepticism about the science underlying the actuarials.

Forensic psychiatry journal issues scathing critique

The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law has just published a scathing critique of the Static-99, saying it lacks each of two elements required for an accurate statistical method of calculating risk: representative samples and uniform measures of outcome.

The must-read article, "Alice in Actuarial-Land" (freely available online), provides a detailed overview of the dizzying changes in recommended norms and procedures for using and interpreting the Static family of instruments over the past decade.

The authors, Shoba Sreenivasan, Linda Weinberger, Allen Frances, and Sarah Cusworth-Walker, illustrate the resultant problems through the hypothetical case of "Mr. X," a 62-year-old rapist.

• Using the original Static-99 norms, Mr. X's risk of sexually reoffending within 5 years of release falls somewhere between 9.1 percent and 39 percent. Qualitatively, in other words, he falls "somewhere between a low and a high risk."

• Using the norms provided with the revised Static-99R instrument, Mr. X's risk lies between 8.7 percent and 29.6 percent by 10 years. Again, "somewhere between low and high risk."
  

Although the case of Mr. X is hypothetical, the judge in the Western Australia case of Mr. Free commented on similar discrepancies between the risk assessments of two forensic psychologists who both relied upon the Static-99. Wrote Judge McKechnie in his insightful analysis:

Dr. [Tara] Yewer's conclusion that [Mr. Free's] risk of re-offending over a five year period is nearly 10 percent more than Ms. [Kirstin] Bouse's conclusion over the same time span is unexplained in the evidence. There is no reason on the evidence why I should reject Ms. Bouse's assessment of 'medium-high' risk or accept in preference Dr. Yewer's assessment of 'high' risk. This application highlights the limitations of STATIC-99.

Any judge who engages in sentencing offenders undertakes some prediction of risk as part of the sentencing process, and does so against a background of principle and experience which suggests that, for example, many young people mature and grow out of crime. Others forsake illicit substances and alcohol and the criminal lifestyle that accompanied them. For some, a period of imprisonment has an actual deterrent effect....

Uncritical acceptance of the STATIC-99 score also negates the whole purpose of [sex offender treatment]. If the programme, to which significant resources are given, has no effect on the risk that participants might then pose to the community, why does the Department of Corrective Services bother with it? … In the present case, I am unable to accept uncritically the risk assessment undertaken by coding the STATIC-99 score, because of earlier reports suggesting the possibility of effective treatment … coupled with the respondent's actual performance [in treatment].

Astonishingly, high-stakes forensic decisions such as criminal sentencing and civil commitment are being made based on such wildly disparate interpretations of data. Also, the authors of the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law article point out, most of the data underlying the Static norms derive from master's or doctoral-level papers that were never published or subjected to the peer-review process:

Apart from the dizzying number of risk scores and qualifications, the validity of the risk scores themselves is dubious, given different definitions of recidivism in the norming samples, lack of clarity in statistical methods, and an overreliance on unpublished manuscripts and presentations to document methods….

The expression of risk in numerical form, whether it is a risk percentage, a d-statistic, or a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) or risk ratio, gives the trier of fact the impression of the precision of risk to a greater degree of accuracy than actually exists.

The serious nature of the sentencing decisions being made using these norms requires that these risk estimates are getting it right….

Although they purport to be empirically based, the current Static-99 and its newer iteration, the Static-99R, violate the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine that require reasoned, not mechanical, application of group findings to the individual.

Lead authors Sreenivasan and Weinberger are core faculty at the Institute of Psychiatry and Law of the University of Southern California. That's more than 10,000 miles from Western Australia. But perhaps they recently vacationed Down Under, and drank a bit of the Perth water.

If they sailed, I just hope they first checked the ship's safety record. Replacing planks at sea can be risky business. Especially if you hit a patch of rough weather.

Of related interest:

• McSherry, B.M. (2006). Sex, Drugs and Evil Souls: The Growing Reliance on Preventive Detention Regimes. Monash University Law Review.

• For readers interested in learning more about the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act of Western Australia, as well as the rules of expert evidence admissibility more generally in Australia, I recommend the written decision in the 2007 case of Robert Anthony Mangolamara, available HERE.
  

Abuse rampant in California prisons

Mentally disabled prisoners in California are routinely beaten, robbed, sexually assaulted and deprived of food and sanitation. And in a "climate of indifference," prison officials have virtually ignored a 2001 court order mandating that they identify and protect these most vulnerable prisoners.

That was the opinion a federal judge issued last week in refusing to lift the 9-year-old court order. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's ruling followed a 6-day trial. The judge cited one instance in which a mentally disabled prisoner lost 35 pounds in five months because his cellmate was stealing his food and guards only laughed at him when he requested their help.

Sacramento Bee series: Prisoner abuse widespread

The judicial ruling echoes a stellar investigative series by reporter Charles Piller of the Sacramento Bee, who obtained and analyzed thousands of pages of documents and interviewed dozens of insiders, including confidential sources. The resulting picture of the inside of California prisons is not pretty:

• Guards fabricating rule violations that extended the time of prisoners they didn't like, including prisoner activists

• Prisoners losing "good time" credits for breaking minor rules, such as stepping across a line on the concrete

• A rigged system in which nearly all prisoners charged with rule violations are found guilty, and appeals or complaints against guards are fruitless

• Light discipline even when officers severely injure or kill prisoners

In one case, an officer needlessly punched a prisoner in the head, broke his elbows, and then lied about it in reports. The penalty? A 12-day suspension.

"The degree of civilization in a society
can be judged by entering its prisons."

-- Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1860)

Undermining the appeals process, according to prisoners and former officers, is prisoners' fear of retaliation. Edgar Martinez, a former prisoner at High Desert, claimed that guards trampled his belongings and strip-searched him in a snow-covered yard. He said he watched guards provoke fights among inmates and tell others, "this [complaint] needs to go away or we're going to make your life a living hell." Afterward, Martinez said, he was too terrified to protest the mistreatment.

In a 2007 case, guards viciously beat several prisoners and denied them adequate medical treatment, yet not a single one filed a complaint, according to a former lieutenant named Gerald Edwards. Prisoners know that filing a complaint may lead to retaliation, including being shipped off to a different prison dominated by racial or ethnic enemies.

Behavior modification units a living hell

If routine conditions are bad, they are nothing compared to the cruelty, corruption and racism that Piller found when he investigated the so-called behavior modification units.

High Desert State Prison. Photo credit: Ben Kutchins, "Prison Town USA"

These are the units where recalcitrant prisoners, disproportionately African American, are subjected to "extreme isolation and deprivation -- long periods in a cell without education, social contact, TV or radio." A prisoner at the Salinas Valley unit went five months without exercise, sunlight or fresh air, according to his successful lawsuit. At the High Desert facility, prisoners described "hours-long strip-searches in a snow-covered exercise yard. They said correctional officers tried to provoke attacks between inmates, spread human excrement on cell doors and roughed up those who peacefully resisted mistreatment. One said guards contaminated prisoners' food with dirt and insects and starved those who complained.

Many of the prisoners' claims were backed by legal and administrative filings, and signed affidavits, which together depicted an environment of brutality, corruption and fear." As Edward Thomas, a former prisoner in the High Desert unit, described it, it was "like something that happens in a concentration camp."

"Black monkey unit": Abuse based on skin color

While about a third of California prisoners are black, blacks comprised a majority of prisoners subjected to the High Desert behavior unit. Guards referred to the unit as the "black monkey unit" and joked about how the "monkeys" are "always hanging around in there" -- a macabre reference to suicide attempts by prisoners of color.

"Guards seemed to view behavior modification as a license to make inmates as miserable as possible to compel obedience," Piller reported.

"Several inmates described an incident when staff left one inmate on the floor with rectal bleeding and refused to take him to get medical attention," according to the report of a group of state researchers. When guards arrived, "they said 'It's the f---ing n----- again, let him die.' And they left him there."

Their July 2007 visit to High Desert shook up the state researchers, said one, a sociologist who lectures at UC Davis and has more than 25 years of corrections research experience. Norm Skonovd said he had never seen a similar case. The researchers were allegedly chastised when they reported what they had seen, and were told to tone down and bury the prisoner allegations of abuse. Skonovd claims he suffered professional retaliation.

Correctional abuse: A cause of violence and recidivism?

Prisoners said the behavior modification units were so dreaded that they would act out so they would be placed in "the hole" instead. This, the researchers noted, could lead to more violence behind bars. Indeed, although the units were "sold to lawmakers as a way to reduce recidivism," their brutality would likely lead to more anger and, hence, more convicts returning to prison, the researchers theorized.

For you blog readers who aren’t from California, why should you care?

Because, like Milan is to the fashion industry, so California is a trendsetter for the global prison industry. You all know by now that the USA is the world's premiere Prison Nation, locking up 1 out of 100 residents. But if California were a country, we would rank seventh in the world -- behind the USA, China, Russia, and a handful of others. (That's by raw numbers. If you go by proportion of the population incarcerated, we fall further back; only one out of every 36 adult Californians is under correctional control, compared with a whopping one out of 13 adult Georgians. Hint: Maps showing rates of incarceration for U.S. states look eerily similar when juxtaposed with maps showing states' proportions of African Americans. Click on the links to see for yourself.)

I highly encourage all of you to read the Bee series (available HERE). Muckraking journalism is practically dead these days, with the daily news biz more and more resembling interchangeable strip malls along the highways -- corporate-owned, homogenized, and full of quick-and-dirty crime bytes. And the prison news beat is especially hard to cover, because access is so highly controlled and critical information subjected to censorship (as "Red Hog" reported in Committing Journalism).

I wonder how Dostoyevsky would have rated the civilization level of modern California.

Update: High court won't block Lewis execution

The U.S. Supreme Court has just refused to block the execution of Teresa Lewis, whom I blogged about Sept. 8, setting the stage for Virginia's first execution of a woman in nearly a century. Lewis is scheduled to die by injection Thursday for hiring two men to kill her husband and stepson for a quarter-million dollar insurance payout.

Two of the three women on the high court, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, voted to stop the execution. The court did not otherwise comment on its order Tuesday.

Lewis's supporters have argued that she does not deserve to die because she is borderline mentally retarded and was manipulated by a smarter conspirator. It is unfair, they say, that she was sentenced to death while the two triggermen received life sentences, writes Washington Post crime scene blogger Maria Blod.

A CBS video interview with Lewis is HERE. Reaction from Iran is HERE.

Science often disbelieved, study finds

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

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

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

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

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

Information sources more atomized

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

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

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

Top myths of popular psychology

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

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

• Abstinence is the only effective treatment for problem drinking

• Criminal profiling helps solve crimes
  

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

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

A blogger responds:

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

The featured research:

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

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

Forensic psych professor slams video game law

A forensic psychology professor and leading researcher of violence and video games has published an editorial in the Salt Lake City Tribune condemning attempts to restrict violent video games as a "waste of taxpayer money."

Christopher Ferguson, an associate professor at Texas A&M University, wants Utah's Attorney General to sign an amicus brief opposing California's Assembly Bill 1179. An appellate court struck down that law, but California has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is slated to hear the case this fall. The law would criminalize selling or renting video games deemed "violent" to consumers under age 18.

Ferguson claims it is "simply dishonest" to imply that research consistently links video games with violence:

First, there is no consistent research indicating that video games cause increased violence. Studies of video game effects return weak and mixed results. Many studies are limited by poor methodology, and some scholars do seem eager to promote negative links, oftentimes ignoring inconsistent data from their own results. The most recent Surgeon General’s report downplayed the influence of media violence, as did a recent Secret Service report on school shooters.

My own research, published in peer-reviewed journals in pediatrics, psychology and criminal justice, has found no links between violent video game playing and violent behavior. Other researchers, such as Cheryl Olson, Lawrence Kutner, Dmitri Williams, John Colwell, among others, have come to similar conclusions. Others, such as Patrick Markey, suggest that perhaps video game violence is like peanut butter, a harmless indulgence for the vast majority of children, but perhaps something to be avoided for a tiny minority of children, particularly those already disposed to pathological violent behavior.

Second, as video games have become more popular and more violent in the past two decades, violent crimes among both youth and adults have gone down to their lowest levels since the 1960s. Indeed, if there is a correlation between video game violence and violent crimes, it is in the opposite direction as that suggested by proponents of the California bill. I’m not saying video games have made the United States less violent; we don’t know that. However, the waves of youth violence some anti-game activists have feared simply never materialized….

My understanding is that California is experiencing difficult financial times and has cut valuable services to needy individuals, including many families and children. It is ironic that the state would claim to champion the welfare of children by throwing money at a video game bill that will help no one, yet cut basic health, education and support services to countless children.

Vending Times has additional coverage and background information HERE.

Sept. 21 postscript:

States Join Media Groups in Briefs Opposing California's Violent Video Game Ban, National Law Journal