Limited Expertise and Experts: Problems with the Continued Use of Future Dangerousness in Capital Sentencing

  • Daniel A. Krauss
  • John G. McCabe
  • Sarah McFadden


Death Penalty Expert Testimony Mental Health Practitioner Mock Juror Capital Sentencing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Psychological Association, (2005). Brief of amicus curiae in United States v. Fields. Case No. 04–50393 (5th circuit).Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association, (1983). Brief of amicus curiae in Barefoot v. Estelle. Case No. 82–6080 (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals).Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (1995). LSI-R: The level of service inventory-revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  4. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).Google Scholar
  5. Babcock, S. (2006). Death row conditions. Death Penalty Information Center. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo. org/article.php?&did = 1397. last visited 9/26/07.
  6. Barefoot v. Estelle, No. 82–6080, 463 U.S.880 (S.Ct. 1983).Google Scholar
  7. Beecher-Monas, E. (2003). The epistemology of prediction: Future dangerousness testimony and intellectual due process. Washington and Lee Law Review, 60(2), 353–416.Google Scholar
  8. Bernstein, D., & Jackson, H. (2004). The Daubert trilogy in the states. Jurimetrics, 44, 1–16.Google Scholar
  9. Blume, J., Garvey, S., & Johnson, S. (2001). Future dangerousness in capital cases: Always “At Issue”. Cornell Law Review, 86, 397–410.Google Scholar
  10. Bowers, W. J. & Steiner, B. D. (1999). Death by default: An empirical demonstration of false and forced choices in capital sentencing. Texas Law Review, 43, 605–717.Google Scholar
  11. Costanzo, S., & Constanzo, M. (1994). Life or death decisions: An analysis of capital jury decision making under the special issues sentencing framework. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham, M. D. (2006). Dangerousness and death: A nexus in search of science and reason. American Psychologist, 61, 828–839.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunningham, M. D., & Reidy, T. J. (1998). Integrating base rate data in violence risk assessment at capital sentencing. Behavioral Science and the Law, 16, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunningham, M.D., Sorensen, J.R., & Reidy, T.J. (2005). An actuarial model for assessment of prison violence risk among maximum security inmates. Assessment, 12, 40–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (S.Ct.1993). Death Penalty Information Center (2007). Facts about the death penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo. org. last visited 9/21/07.
  16. Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819–829.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeMatteo, D., & 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(2), 214–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Donovan, S., & Epstein, S. (1997) The difficulty of the Linda conjunction problem can be attributed to its simultaneous concrete and unnatural representation, and not to conversational implicature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dorland, M. (2004). Aggravating circumstances in Oklahoma: Executed offenders. Unpublished manuscript, Claremont, CA: Claremont McKenna College.Google Scholar
  20. Dorland, M., & Krauss, D. (2005). The danger of dangerousness in capital sentencing: exacerbating the problem of arbitrary and capricious decision-making. Law and Psychology Review, 29, 63–104.Google Scholar
  21. Douglas, K., Ogloff, J., Nicholls, T., & Grant, I. (1999). Assessing risk for violence among psychiatric patients: The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme and the Psychopathic Checklist: Screening Version. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 917–930.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Douglas, K., & Webster, C. (1999). The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: Concurrent validity in a sample of incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Edens, J., Buffington-Vollum, J., Keilin, A., Roskamp, P., & Anthony, C. (2005). Predictions of future dangerousness in capital murder trials: is it time to “disinvent the wheel?” Law and Human Behavior, 29, 55–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Epstein, S., & Pacini, R. (1999). Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.) Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 462–483). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitiveexperiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).Google Scholar
  28. Gardner, W., Lidz, C., Mulvey, E., & Shaw, E. (1996). Clinical versus actuarial predictions of violence in patients with mental illness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 602–609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. General Electric v. Joiner 522 U.S. 136 (S.Ct. 1996)Google Scholar
  30. Grove, W., & Meehl, P. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 2, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guy, L., & Edens, J. (2003). Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: Gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony. Behavioral Science and the Law, 21, 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hart, S.D., Michie, C., & Cook, D.J. (2007). Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: Evaluating the “margins of error” of group v. individual predictions of violence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190, 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harris, G.T., & Rice, M.E. (2007). Characterizing the value of actuarial violence risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior. Google Scholar
  34. Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. (2002). Prospective replication of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide in predicting violent recidivism among forensic patients. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976).Google Scholar
  36. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 S.Ct. 2072 (1997).Google Scholar
  37. Kansas v. Crane 534 U.S. 407 (S.Ct. 2002).Google Scholar
  38. Krauss, D. (2004). Adjusting risk of recidivism: Do judicial departures worsen or improve recidivism prediction under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6, 731–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krauss, D., Cassar, D., & Strother, A. (in press). The admissibility of expert testimony in the United States, the commonwealth and elsewhere. In D. Krauss, & J. Lieberman (Vol. Eds.), Expert testimony: Vol. II. A two volume edited work in the series: Psychology, Crime, & Law (D. caner series Ed.) Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  40. Krauss, D., & Lee, D. (2003). Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors’ ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26, 113–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krauss, D., & Lieberman, J. (2007). Expert testimony on risk and future dangerousness. In M. Costanzo, D. Krauss & K. Pezdek, (Eds.), Expert testimony for the courts (pp. 227–250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Krauss, D. A., Lieberman J. D., & Olson, J. (2004). The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 801–822.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krauss, D., & Sales, B. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision-making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 267–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kumho Tire v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (S.Ct.1999).Google Scholar
  45. Lieberman, J., Krauss, D., Kyger, M., & Lehoux, M. (2007). Determining dangerousness in Sexually Violent Predator evaluations: Cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 507–526.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marquart, J., Ekland-Olson, S., & Sorensen J. (1989). Gazing into the crystal ball: Can jurors actually predict dangerousness in capital cases? Law & Society Review, 23, 449–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McKee, S. A., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2007). Improving forensic tribunal decisions: The role of the clinician. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 485–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McNeil, D., Sanders, D., & Binder, R. (1998). The relationship between confidence and accuracy in clinical predictions of psychiatric patients’ potential for violence. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 655–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Monahan, J. (1981). The clinical prediction of violent behavior. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Monahan, J. (2003). Violence risk assessment. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) & A. Goldstein (Vol. Ed.), The handbook of psychology: Vol. 11. forensic psychology (pp. 527–542). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Monahan, J., Steadman, H., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P., Robbins, P., Mulvey, E., Roth, L., Grisso, T., & Banks, S. (2001). Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorders and violence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical, 62, 783–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nenno v. State, 970 SW.2d 544 (Tx Crim. App. 1998).Google Scholar
  54. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (S.Ct. 1975).Google Scholar
  55. Panetti v. Quarterman, U.S. LEXIS 8667 (2007).Google Scholar
  56. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).Google Scholar
  57. Reidy, T. J., Cunningham, M. D., & Sorenson, J. (2001). From death to life: Prison behavior of former death row inmates in Indiana. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 62–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rice, M., & Harris, G. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737–748.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).Google Scholar
  60. Sales, B., & Shuman, D. (2007). Science, experts, and law: Reflections on the past and future. In M. Costanzo, Krauss, D., & K. Pezdek (Eds.) Expert testimony for the courts (pp. 9–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  61. Slobogin, C. (2007). Proving the unprovable. American Psychology-Law Society Society Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Sorenson, J. R., & Marquart, J. W. (1991). Prosecutorial and jury decision-making in post-Furman Texas capital cases. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 18, 743–776.Google Scholar
  63. Sorensen, J.R., Pilgrim, R.L. (2001). An actuarial risk assessment of violence posed by capital murder defendants. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 90, 1251–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Texas Criminal Code, Article 37.071, 2(b)(1) (2004).Google Scholar
  65. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgments of and by representativeness. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 84–100). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. United States v. Fields No 04-50393 483 F.3d 313 (5th Circuit).Google Scholar
  67. Vidmar, N., Lempert, R., Diamond, S., Hans, V., Landsman, S., MacCoun, R. et al. (2000). Amicus Brief: Kumho Tire v. Carmichael. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 387–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Webster, C., Douglas, K., Eaves, D., & Hart, S. (1997). HCR-20: Assessing risk for violence. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser University, Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel A. Krauss
    • 1
  • John G. McCabe
  • Sarah McFadden
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyClaremont McKenna CollegeClaremont

Personalised recommendations