April 1, 2013
A new study on impartial courtroom experts found that they are not so impartial.
In many court cases forensic psychologists and psychiatrists are hired to provide testimony on the likeliness of a sexual offender repeating a crime.
A recent University of Virginia study of one hundred experts found their opinions were often swayed based on whether they believed they were working for the defense or the prosecution.
"Those experts who believed they were working for the prosecution, tended to see the same offenders as higher risk, more likely to re-offend; they scored them as more likely to re-offend," said Daniel Murrie, a researcher in the study. "The experts who believed they were working for the defense scored those same experts as less likely to re-offend."
The researchers hope the study will prompt clinicians to take a harder look at how they are trained and practice.
The comments sections of Newsplex.com are designed for thoughtful, intelligent conversation and debate. We want to hear from our viewers, but we only ask that you use your best judgment. E-mail is required, but will not be displayed with comment.
As a host Newsplex.com welcomes a wide spectrum of opinions. However this is a site that we host. We have a responsibility to all our readers to try to keep our comment section fair and decent. For that reason The Newsplex reserves the right to not post or to remove any comment.
If you have any ideas to improve the conversation or this section let us know. Send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.
powered by Disqus