Steffan's Alerts #7: Neuromaging, juveniles, and perceptions of injustice

Click on a title to read the article abstract; click on a highlighted author's name to request the full article.

Perceptions of wrongful convictions by criminal justice personnel

In a new issue of Crime and Delinquency, Brad Smith and colleagues surveyed attitudes of criminal justice participants in Michigan. According to their findings, defense attorneys perceived that wrongful convictions occur more frequently than did police, prosecutors, and judges. Of the professionals surveyed, only defense attorneys viewed this concern as warranting reforms in the justice system.

How important are graduated sanctions in reducing recidivism?

In another article in Crime and Delinquency, Kristin Johnson and coauthors indicate that incorporating graduated sanctions into predictions of recidivism diminishes the predictive utility of waiver to adult court. Their results draw attention to the role of graduated sanctions and treatment programming for juvenile offenders.

What do mock jurors make of neuroimaging evidence?

N.J. Schweitzer and colleagues presented neuroscience-based testimony and neuroimagery to jury-eligible participants in mock court experiments. As reported in a new issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, participants rendered opinions on criminal culpability and sentencing. Neuroimagery, the authors reported, affected jurors' judgments no more than verbal testimony based on neuroscience.

Is the Adam Walsh Act working with juvenile offenders?

Also in Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, Ashley Batastini and colleagues report that the Act’s classification system failed to predict sexual or nonsexual reoffending among a small sample of juveniles who were followed over a two-year period. In addition to their exploratory study, they discuss key concerns in the application of the Act to juveniles.

Steffan's alerts are brought to you by Jarrod Steffan, Ph.D., a forensic and clinical psychologist based in Wichita, Kansas. For more information about Dr. Steffan, please visit his website.

New York Times op-ed: "The last pariahs"

The chorus of dissent has been getting louder for a while now, but an anthropologist's cogent op-ed in the New York Times may increase mainstream attention to the problem of overly broad sex offender laws. The op-ed by Roger Lancaster is getting a lot of play on professional listservs. In case you missed it here's the conclusion:

Digital scarlet letters, electronic tethering and practices of banishment have relegated a growing number of people to the logic of "social death," a term introduced by the sociologist Orlando Patterson, in the context of slavery, to describe permanent dishonor and exclusion from the wider moral community. The creation of a pariah class of unemployable, uprooted criminal outcasts has drawn attention from human rights activists; even The Economist has decried our sex offender laws as harsh and ineffective.

This should worry us, in part because the techniques used for marking, shaming and controlling sex offenders have come to serve as models for laws and practices in other domains. Several states currently publish online listings of methamphetamine offenders, and other states are considering public registries for assorted crimes. Mimicking Megan’s Law, Florida maintains a Web site that gives the personal details (including photo, name, age, address, offenses and periods of incarceration) of all prisoners released from custody. Some other states post similar public listings of paroled or recently released ex-convicts. It goes without saying that such procedures cut against rehabilitation and reintegration.

Our sex offender laws are expansive, costly and ineffective -- guided by panic, not reason. It is time to change the conversation: to promote child welfare based on sound data rather than statistically anomalous horror stories, and in some cases to revisit outdated laws that do little to protect children. Little will have been gained if we trade a bloated prison system for sprawling forms of electronic surveillance that offload the costs of imprisonment onto offenders, their families and their communities.

The author, Roger N. Lancaster, is a professor of anthropology and director of the cultural studies program at George Mason University. He is the author of a new book from UC Press, Sex Panic and the Punitive State.

The full article is online HERE.

Collateral consequences of juvenile conviction

By the age of 17, Terence Hallinan had had several scrapes with the law, including a conviction for helping beat up three Coast Guardsmen in order to steal a case of beer. Yet he was able to put delinquency behind him, and become a successful attorney who served two terms as district attorney of San Francisco.

Such redemption stories were not so unusual back in his day. But today's world is much less forgiving of youthful indiscretions. A kid who gets into any type of legal trouble has a much harder time overcoming the stigma and going on to lead a productive life.

An astonishing two million juveniles are arrested each year in the United States. For many, their first priority is getting out of custody. They may be willing to plead guilty to a seemingly trivial crime, in order to accomplish this short-term goal. Little do they realize that pleading guilty to a crime may have long-lasting collateral consequences far worse than the initial punishment itself.

In an excellent overview of the juvenile justice system in the current issue of The Champion (published by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers), Dr. Ashley Nellis, research analyst of The Sentencing Project, outlines some of these drastic consequences:

Zero Tolerance and Other School Push-out Policies

There is a public perception that African American and Latino students are quitting school in droves. But as explained on an episode of NPR’s Talk of the Nation last week, many of these students are actually the victims of  PUSH-OUT policies disproportionately targeting students of color. Zero Tolerance policies spearheaded by the federal government are forcing some youngsters out of school even if an arrest does not lead to a conviction.

Employment Barriers

Contrary to what many people believe, children processed through the juvenile  justice system do not automatically have their records destroyed (expunged) when they turn 18. Neither do juveniles transferred to the adult system. Having a criminal record creates sometimes insurmountable barriers to leading a successful life, by limiting options for housing, education and employment.

Eviction and Homelessness

Due to a law passed in 1996, under the Clinton administration, a juvenile conviction can lead to the eviction of an entire family from low-income housing. Youth re-entering their communities from out-of-home placement also struggle to achieve housing stability. This destabilization, naturally, increases risk for reoffending -- and the cycle continues.

Placement on a Sex Offender Registry

Despite their demonstrated lack of efficacy, and even their harmful effects, juvenile sex offender registries are gaining in popularity. In some states, children as young as nine are being placed on registries for childish misconduct or even consensual relations with other children. Ironically, children are the very people the laws were intended to protect, yet they are being disproportionately harmed by placement on registries.

After individuals have been added to the registry, they face strict limitations on where they can live, attend school, and work. Anytime registrants change residency they must notify the authorities and update their registration; failure to do so promptly can and frequently does result in incarceration…. Despite the law’s intent to make children and the community safer, it does the opposite. Young people face social stigma, branding as predators, housing bans, and exclusion from schools as a result of placement on the registry.

Dr. Nellis concludes with a series of recommendations to reduce the negative impact of collateral sanctions for juveniles, including:

• Reverse counterproductive school-based policies such as "zero tolerance" that disengage youth from school.
• Ensure expungement for juvenile records.
• Prohibit inclusion of juvenile records on national and state offender registries.
• Restrict non-relevant conviction questions from employment applications.
• Revise and expand reentry services and supports for youth. 

The full article, Addressing Collateral Consequences of Convictions for Young Offenders, can be downloaded HERE.

Hat tip: Bruce

At long last: New forensic specialty guidelines approved

After a 9-year revision process, the American Psychological Association has finally approved new Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. The Guidelines will replace those established in 1991.

The Guidelines are intended for use not only by forensic psychologists, but by any psychologist when engaged in the practice of forensic psychology. Forensic psychology is defined as the application of any specialized psychological knowledge to a legal context, to assist in addressing legal, contractual, and administrative matters. The Guidelines are also meant to provide guidance on professional conduct to the legal system, and other organizations and professions.

Guidelines differ from standards, such as those in the APA’s Ethics Code, in that they are aspirational rather than mandatory. They are intended to facilitate the continued systematic development of the profession and facilitate a high level of practice by psychologists, rather than being intended to serve as a basis for disciplinary action or civil or criminal liability.

The revision committee, chaired by Randy Otto, included representatives of the American Psychology-Law Society (Division 41 of the APA) and the American Academy of Forensic Psychology. 

The Guidelines will be published shortly in the American Psychologist journal. In the meantime, a draft version is available HERE. I encourage all of you to read and learn its contents. Much of it will sound familiar to those with a working knowledge of the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Although the Guidelines dance around some of the major controversies in our field, there is still plenty to be happy about. By way of whetting your appetite (hopefully), here is a random smattering:

2.05 Knowledge of the Scientific Foundation for Opinions and Testimony: Forensic practitioners seek to provide opinions and testimony that are sufficiently based upon adequate scientific foundation, and reliable and valid principles and methods that have been applied appropriately to the facts of the case. When providing opinions and testimony that are based on novel or emerging principles and methods, forensic practitioners seek to make known the status and limitations of these principles and methods.

2.08 Appreciation of Individual and Group Differences: Forensic practitioners strive to understand how factors associated with age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, socioeconomic status, or other relevant individual and cultural differences may affect and be related to the basis for people’s contact and involvement with the legal system.

6.03 Communication with Forensic Examinee: Forensic practitioners inform examinees about the nature and purpose of the examination, … including potential consequences of participation or non-participation, if known.

10.01 Focus on Legally Relevant Factors: Forensic practitioners are encouraged to consider the problems that may arise by using a clinical diagnosis in some forensic contexts, and consider and qualify their opinions and testimony appropriately.

11.04 Comprehensive and Accurate Presentation of Opinions in Reports and Testimony: Forensic practitioners are encouraged to limit discussion of background information that does not bear directly upon the legal purpose of the examination or consultation. Forensic practitioners avoid offering information that is irrelevant and that does not provide a substantial basis of support for their opinions, except when required by law.

Leonard Rubenstein, a senior scholar at the Center for Human Rights and Public Health of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, writes in a Huffington Post column that the new Guidelines will prevent psychologists from participating in abusive government interrogations as they did at Guantanamo. I think that's a stretch. These guidelines are not enforceable. And, like all such professional guidelines, they will be subject to diverse interpretations.

Pretrial civil detention of sex offenders unlawful, judge rules

A New York law mandating that sex offenders be confined while awaiting civil commitment trials is unconstitutional, a judge has ruled. But the ruling may not make much difference to most sex offenders whom the state wants to civilly detain, because they are waiving away their rights to a trial.

Supreme Court Justice Colleen Duffy ruled that New York's 2007 Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act is unconstitutional because it does not allow for any less restrictive remedy such as supervised release. Under the law, if a court finds probable cause that a convicted sex offender remains a danger, the individual must be confined until a civil trial, which can take a year or more.

Ironically, if the sex offender is ultimately found to suffer from a "mental abnormality" that renders him potentially dangerous to the public, the court then has the option of ordering intensive community supervision rather than involuntarily confinement in a mental institution.

In the case at hand, the judge noted that the state's Office of Mental Health had already determined that "Enrique T." would be a good candidate for strict, outpatient supervision rather than confinement. She ordered the immediate release of the detainee:

"Respondent is faced with a Morton's Fork -- he must either choose to enforce his right to a jury trial and continue to be detained for an unknown period of time in a psychiatric facility awaiting trial on this matter or surrender his right to trial and consent to a finding of mental abnormality so that he may be immediately released back to the community under [strict and intensive supervision and treatment]. Due process cannot countenance a statute that mandates such a choice."

Her decision follows a federal court decision earlier this year that came to the same conclusion, according to a report by John Caher in the New York Law Journal.

Sex offenders choosing not to fight commitment 

Unless these rulings result in complete scrapping of the state's civil commitment scheme, which is unlikely, it is unclear how many sex offenders whom the state seeks to detain will end up benefiting. For reasons that experts call "inexplicable," the majority of offenders are waiving their right to a jury trial, according to a separate report in the New York Law Journal. Reports John Caher:

Shortly after the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act took effect in April 2007, authorities detected an unexpected and inexplicable phenomenon: Sex offenders targeted for civil confinement after serving their prison sentences were overwhelmingly waiving their right to a jury trial and consenting to confinement. Nearly 92 percent, 33 of 36, of the sex offenders civilly confined during the first year of the law's enactment had agreed to placement in a mental institution following release from prison. And while those numbers have tapered off in the last three years, a large portion of the sex offenders targeted for civil management continue to forego their right to a trial and consent to confinement, even though the most serious consequence of going to trial is confinement….

No one is sure why sex offenders are consenting to confinement and giving up their liberty when … they seemingly have nothing to lose. At trial after they have served a criminal sentence, the state has to prove by the high standard of clear and convincing evidence that the respondent suffers from a "mental abnormality" that predisposes him or her to commit sex crimes. A unanimous verdict is required, and if a unanimous verdict is not reached, the offender will likely go free since most have served the maximum sentence and are not on parole.

The success rate when offenders go to trial is fairly high, about 15 percent overall and more than 20 percent when they opt for a jury rather than a bench trial.

Theories offered by an assortment of experts and state officials to explain this unexpected trend include:

• Sex offenders believe that confinement is inevitable so choose to avoid the added humiliation and angst of trial.

• Sex offenders know they are dangerous and need help in order to not reoffend.

• Some offenders cannot find any doctor willing to testify on their behalf. 

• Some offenders are so marginalized and despised that they have no options for employment or housing in the community.

"A great deal of these folks have no social safety net," said defense attorney Thomas Callaghan. "Many of them are estranged from their families. Very few are married. They realize they can fight, but they really have no place to go."

Lesley M. DeLia, another legal services attorney, echoed this observation. She said some clients were initially eager to go to court, but balked as their trial date loomed closer:

"They know it is not a friendly world out there if they get out. They are scared about what life will be like ... and some of them just don't want to deal with it. There is no housing for them. They can't get jobs. Others are just so institutionalized they are afraid to go. We did have one fellow who said he knows he is not ready and does not want to get out and do it again."

"Kids-for-cash" judge gets 28-year prison term

Mother of a suicide victim confronts crooked judge

In what may be the longest federal prison sentence ever given in a U.S. political corruption case, a juvenile judge who earned millions of dollars by sending kids to private jails has received a 28-year sentence. A second judge, Michael Conahan, has not yet been sentenced.

As I blogged about in 2009 ("Evil lurked in Luzerne County"), Pennsylvania Judge Mark Ciaverella Jr. got kickbacks for sending children to the private lock-up. He even shut down the public juvenile hall so all minors would have to go to the new detention center. He sold children down the river for crimes as minor as writing a prank note or possessing drug paraphernalia.

Investigation of the so-called "kids for cash" scheme led to 4,000 juvenile convictions being overturned. Although 28 years sounds like a long time, if you do the math it's less than three days per juvenile case.