Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

How objective are forensic experts when they are retained by one of the opposing sides in an adversarial legal proceeding? Despite long-standing concerns from within the legal system, little is known about whether experts can provide opinions unbiased by the side that retained them. In this experiment, we paid 108 forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to review the same offender case files, but deceived some to believe that they were consulting for the defense and some to believe that they were consulting for the prosecution. Participants scored each offender on two commonly used, well-researched risk-assessment instruments. Those who believed they were working for the prosecution tended to assign higher risk scores to offenders, whereas those who believed they were working for the defense tended to assign lower risk scores to the same offenders; the effect sizes (d) ranged up to 0.85. The results provide strong evidence of an allegiance effect among some forensic experts in adversarial legal proceedings.

Keywords

forensic science forensic assessment forensic psychology bias risk assessment adversarial allegiance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983).

Bernstein

D. E.

(2008). Expert witnesses, adversarial bias, and the (partial) failure of the Daubert Revolution. Iowa Law Review, 93, 101–137.

DeMatteo

Edens

J. F.

(2006). The role and relevance of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in court: A case law survey of U.S. courts (1991-2004). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 214–241. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.12.2.214

Dror

I. E.

Cole

S. A.

(2010). The visit in “blind” justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 161–167. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.2.161

Dror

I. E.

Hampikian

(2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science and Justice, 51, 204–208. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004

Gacono

Hutton

(1994). Suggestions for the clinical and forensic use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R). International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 17, 303–317.

Guarnera

L. A.

Murrie

D. C.

Boccaccini

M. T.

Rufino

(2012, March). Do attitudes affect psychopathy scores evaluators assign to sexual offenders in Sexually Violent Predator proceedings? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Hand

(1901). Historical and practical considerations regarding expert testimony. Harvard Law Review, 15, 40–58.

Hanson

R. K.

Morton-Bourgon

K. E.

(2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 21, 1–21. doi:10.1037/a0014421

10.

Hanson

R. K.

Thornton

(2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119–136. doi:10.1023/A:1005482921333

11.

Hare

R. D.

(2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised: Second edition. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

12.

Hawes

S. W.

Boccaccini

M. T.

Murrie

D. C.

(2013). Psychopathy and the combination of psychopathy and sexual deviance as predictors of sexual recidivism: Meta-analytic findings using the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised. Psychological Assessment, 25, 233–243. doi:10.1037/a0030391

13.

Helmus

Thornton

Hanson

R. K.

Babchishin

K. M.

(2012). Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: Revised age weights. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 64–101. doi:10.1177/1079063211409951

14.

Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997).

15.

Krafka

Dunn

M. A.

Johnson

M. T.

Cecil

J. S.

Miletich

(2002). Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 309–332. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.8.3.309

16.

Leistico

A. R.

Salekin

R. T.

DeCoster

Rogers

(2008). A large-scale meta-analysis relating the Hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 28–45. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9096-6

17.

Mnookin

(2008). Expert evidence, partisanship, and epistemic confidence. Brooklyn Law Review, 73, 587–611.

18.

Morey

L. C.

(1991). Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

19.

Murrie

D. C.

Boccaccini

M. T.

Johnson

J. T.

Janke

(2008). Does interrater (dis)agreement on Psychopathy Checklist scores in sexually violent predator trials suggest partisan allegiance in forensic evaluations? Law and Human Behavior, 32, 352–362. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9097-5

20.

Murrie

D. C.

Boccaccini

M. T.

Turner

Meeks

Woods

Tussey

(2009). Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 19–53. doi:10.1037/a0014897

21.

National Research Council, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

22.

Rufino

K. A.

Boccaccini

M. T.

Guy

L. S.

(2011). Scoring subjectivity and item performance on measures used to assess violence risk: The PCL-R and HCR-20 as exemplars. Assessment, 18, 453–463. doi:10.1177/1073191110378482

23.

Rufino

K. A.

Boccaccini

M. T.

Hawes

Murrie

D. C.

(2012). When experts disagreed, who was correct? A comparison of PCL-R scores from independent raters and opposing forensic experts. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 527–531. doi:10.1037/h0093988

24.

Skeem

Polaschek

Patrick

Lilienfeld

(2011). Psychopathic personality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 95–162. doi:10.1177/1529100611426706

25.

Static-99 Clearinghouse. (n.d.). Static-99/Static-99R. Retrieved from http://www.static99.org/

26.

Wigmore

(1923). A treatise on the Anglo–American system of evidence in trials at common law: Including the statutes and judicial decisions of all jurisdictions of the United States and Canada. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB

Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That Retained Them?

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material