October 9, 2008

Challenge to juvenile sex offender risk prediction

Harsh federal law on shaky scientific ground

Did you know that each year, about 10,000 children will have to register as sex offenders for life?

That's part of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, embedded in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act passed by the U.S. Congress two years ago. Under SORNA, these arrested juveniles will be subject to warrantless searches for the rest of their lives, despite the fact that as kids they did not have the same types of due process rights that protect adults in criminal court.

SORNA marks a huge departure from past juvenile justice practices, which recognized that children are different, and that most juvenile crime is "adolescent-limited."

So, here's some food for thought:
  • What if it turns out that this new practice is not just extremely harsh, but paradoxically puts the public at heightened risk by impeding rehabilitation, and consigning kids who would otherwise move on with their lives to the status of permanent social pariahs?
  • And what if it turns out that the "scientific" methods the states use to determine which juveniles are at high risk for sexual reoffending are completely worthless?
Well, it looks like both of those things are true.

Prediction tools don't work

This month's Psychology, Public Policy, and Law published an important study showing that the systems in place to determine which juveniles are at high risk for recidivism simply don't do the job.

The researchers followed high-risk juvenile males for an average of about six years. They rated them on the highly touted Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol (J-SOAP-II) and the risk protocols developed by three states (Texas, New Jersey, and Wisconsin). Not only did the systems not work, but they were not even consistent with each other!

"This finding suggests that a juvenile's assessed level of risk may be more dependent on the state he lives in than on his actual recidivism risk," the authors concluded.

And SORNA's own tiered risk system fared even worse: Juveniles designated as high risk actually recidivated at lower rates than others.

In summary, the researchers concluded that the risk tools that have such important implications for the lives and futures of adolescents are both "nonscientific" and "arbitrary."

Treatment works

Although the efficacy of sex offender treatment among adults is contested, among adolescents the study findings were clear: Developmental factors play a big role in adolescent sexual behavior, and risk for reoffense can be reduced through high-quality treatment.

This is consistent with other recent research showing that even the most intractable offenders can be rehabilitated -- and at a cost far lower than the cost of punishment.

The authors concluded that SORNA as it applies to youth is not only misguided but is likely to do more harm than good:
"The legislation … is based on the assumption that juvenile sex offenders are on a singular trajectory to becoming adult sexual offenders. This assumption is not supported by these results, is inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the juvenile court, and may actually impede the rehabilitation of youth."
Now, consider these facts:
  • Most juvenile sex offenders stop offending by early adulthood.
  • Among delinquents, just as many non-sex offenders as sex offenders go on to engage in adult sexual offending.
  • At least one in five adolescent males commits a sexual assault. (See Abbey, referenced below.)
What do these facts add up to?

The need for widescale prevention efforts, instead of ineffective stigmatization of a few unlucky individuals. (Funding for such efforts has dropped precipitously, probably not coincidentally to the rise of increasingly punitive sanctions; see Koss citation, below.)

Other challenges to SORNA

Meanwhile, other aspects of SORNA face challenges, and a few such challenges are headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, legal challenges assert that SORNA exceeds federal rights by encroaching on state and local decision-making.

As summarized in the current issue of the American Bar Association journal, at least two courts have sided with critics and invalidated some or all of the registry law, and in a third case the new law has been put on hold until arguments are heard. (I reported on one of those cases, U.S. v. Waybright, back in August – the blog post with links is here.)

SORNA-style databases are already being extended to domestic violence offenders, and if they are upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court they are likely to extend even further. That is the conclusion of Wayne A. Logan, a law professor at Florida State University and author of the forthcoming book Knowledge as Power: A History of Criminal Registration Laws in America.

So, warn your kids now: Don't ever get arrested. You may be publicly stigmatized - and perhaps even subject to warrantless searches - for the rest of your life.

For further information:

Caldwell, M.F., Ziemke, M.H., & Vitacco, M.J. (2008). An examination of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act as applied to juveniles: Evaluating the ability to predict sexual recidivism. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14 (2). 89-114.

Abbey, A. (2005). Lessons learned and unanswered questions about sexual assault perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20 (1). 39-42.

Koss, M.P. (2005). Empirically enhanced reflections on 20 years of rape research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20 (1). 100-107.

For further information on the juvenile registration requirements of SORNA, see the U.S. Department of Justice's online fact sheet; this month's Police Chief magazine also has a summary of SORNA that includes the juvenile provisions (online here). The full text of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is here.

The American Bar Association article, "The National Pulse: Crime Registries Under Fire -- Adam Walsh Act mandates sex offender lists, but some say it's unconstitutional," is available here.

September 30, 2008

9th circuit upholds expert witness exclusion

Proposed testimony on murder victim's suicide risk

Jeffrey Moses' defense against the accusation that he murdered his wife Jennifer was that she shot herself to death. As evidence, he wanted to call Dr. Lawrence Wilson, a forensic psychiatrist and expert on suicide.

At a pretrial evidentiary hearing, Dr. Wilson said he would testify about Jennifer's depression and substance abuse. To counter the testimony of government witnesses who said she did not appear visibly depressed, he was prepared to opine that someone who is severely depressed can mask such feelings from friends and co-workers.

As law professor Colin Marshall summarized it over at the EvidenceProf Blog:
Dr. Wilson was also prepared to testify that several risk factors, such as depression, substance abuse, and access to firearms, heighten the risk of suicide. Additionally, he was prepared to testify that lay persons do not fully understand the implications of major depression and the connection between these various risk factors and suicide. Although Dr. Wilson was not willing to opine that Jennifer Moses committed suicide, he was prepared to testify that Jennifer Moses fell "into a group of people with an extreme number of severe and significant risk factors for suicide" and that "she continued to suffer [from] major depression...that continued to the time of her death."
The trial court excluded Dr. Wilson's testimony on the grounds that much of it was within the common knowledge of potential jurors, and was cumulative in light of other evidence that Jennifer did indeed suffer from depression. Also, Dr. Wilson's testimony that 15 percent of people with depression ultimately kill themselves was too prejudicial and potentially confusing to a jury, the trial court ruled.

The Washington state case is Moses v. Payne, 2008 WL 4192031 (9th Cir. 2008), available online here. The analysis by Professor Colin Miller from the John Marshall School of Law is here.

September 29, 2008

Odd twist in latest DNA exoneration

Speaking of movies -- here's a yarn that would make a good film plot:

A man named Clay Chabot is suspected of raping and killing a woman named Galua Crosby. He goes to trial. A key piece of evidence is the testimony of his brother-in-law. The brother-in-law, Gerald Pabst, testifies that Chabot forced him to tie up Mrs. Crosby and then ordered him out of the room; he could hear Ms. Crosby saying "no" before she was shot. With this kind of evidence, it is no surprise that Chabot is convicted. He gets life.

For the next two decades, Chabot insists he is innocent. He requests DNA testing to prove it. Finally, he gets his wish and - guess what - the incriminating DNA belongs to his good samaritan brother-in-law.

What makes the case all the more interesting is that the prosecutor, Janice Warder, had cut a secret deal with Pabst, promising him immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony. Considering his guilt, it was too good a deal to pass up.

And, since no bad deed goes unrewarded, the prosecutor went on to become a judge in Dallas County, Texas; she is now up for uncontested reelection as the District Attorney of Cooke County, Oklahoma.

For Dallas Morning News coverage on this case, see:

Former Dallas County prosecutor who withheld evidence will be Cooke County's District Attorney

Judge calls for retrial in 1986 slaying because of ex-prosecutor's misconduct

Jury convicts man of murder in 1986 Garland slaying

On an unrelated note, the Dallas Morning News also has a cool web page devoted to the Dallas Police Department's cold-case squad and some of its more interesting unsolved cases. Check it out; it's better than the TV series by the same name.

Hat tip: Grits for Breakfast

September 28, 2008

Engaging new techno-political thriller

Eagle Eye

I don't know about you, but on those rare occasions when I have time to go see a movie, I am having trouble finding any worth seeing. With that in mind, I thought I would pass along a recommendation for Eagle Eye. It's an action thriller with a timely and relevant message. If you liked Gattaca (1997), you'll enjoy this one. I won't say more on this blog, but my Amazon review is online here.

September 26, 2008

New manual for SVP evaluators

I just finished reading the brand-new manual, Evaluation of Sexually Violent Predators by Philip H. Witt and Mary Alice Conroy, and I regret to say that I was disappointed. Perhaps the title should have been a clue: We are supposed to be evaluating convicted sex offenders to see whether they meet the legal criteria of being "Sexually Violent Predators," not making an a priori assumption that they do. At any rate, I found the book superficial and one-sided.

For more specifics, see my Amazon review - online here. (If you like the review, please click on the little "Yes" button where it says "Was this review helpful to you?" That helps to boost my Amazon ratings, which improve the placement of my reviews.)

The manual is one in a new "Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health Assessment" series from Oxford University Press. The series editors include such luminaries in forensic psychology as Thomas Grisso and Kirk Heilbrun.

The title in the Oxford series that I'm really looking forward to is The Evaluation of Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial by Thomas Grisso and my old colleague from Washington, Ivan Kruh, both of whom really know their stuff on this topic. It's due out in November; you can pre-order it here for just $35.

September 25, 2008

Jam-packed new issue of psychiatry-law journal

The latest issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law is now available online, with interesting articles on competency, insanity, dangerousness, practice guidelines, diagnosis in SVP proceedings (a topic I am addressing in an upcoming training and an article in press), and much more:

The LEGAL DIGEST section includes the following summaries and analyses:
And there's even more, believe it or not – check out the full table of contents here.