Quagmire Ahead!: The Sticky Role of Behavioral Science in Capital Sentencing

  • Mario J. Scalora


Expert Testimony Mental Health Practitioner Mock Juror Preventive Detention Forensic Evaluation 
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. Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., & McClelland, G. M. (2003). Comorbidity of severe psychiatric disorders and substance use disorders among women in jail. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1007–1010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (1995). LSI-R: The level of service inventory-revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  3. Buchanan, A. (2000). Psychiatric aspects of justification, excuse and mitigation: The jurisprudence of mental abnormality in Anglo-American criminal law. London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Cunningham, M. D. (2006). Informed consent in capital sentencing evaluations: Targets and content. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 452–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cunningham, M. D., & Sorensen, J. R. (2007). Predictive factors for violent misconduct in close custody. The Prison Journal, 87, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeMatteo, D., Marczyk, G., & Pich, M. (2007). A national survey of state legislation defining mental retardation: Implications for policy and practice after Atkins. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 781–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Fabian, J. M. (2003). Death penalty mitigation and the role of the forensic psychologist. Law & Psychology Review, 27, 73–120.Google Scholar
  9. Goldstein, A. M., Goldstein, N. E., & Kalbeitzer, R. (2006). Assessing childhood trauma and developmental factors as mitigation in capital cases. In S. N. Sparta, G. P. Koocher (Eds.), Forensic mental health assessment of children and adolescents. (pp. 365–380). New York : Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gordon, T. M., & Brodsky, S. L. (2007). The influence of Victim Impact Statements on sentencing in capital cases. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7, 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2007). Characterizing the value of actuarial violence risk assessments. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1638–1658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (2008). Shall evidence-based risk assessment be abandoned? British Journal of Psychiatry, 192, 154.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Marczyk, G., Knauss, L., Kutinsky, J., DeMatteo, D., & Heilbrun, K. (2008). The legal, ethical, and applied aspects of capital mitigation evaluations: Practice guidance from a principlesbased approach. In H. V. Hall (Ed.), Forensic psychology and neuropsychology for criminal and civil cases. (pp. 41–91). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  17. Martinovski, B. (2006). A framework for the analysis of mitigation in courts: Toward a theory of mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2065–2086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nicholson, R. A., & Norwood, S. (2000). The quality of forensic psychological assessments, reports, and testimony: Acknowledging the gap between promise and practice. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 9–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sabol, W.J. & Couture, H. (2008). Prison inmates at midyear 2007. Bureau of Justice Statistics (NCJ 221944). Retrieved June 1, 2008 from
  20. Stafford, K. P., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2002). Assessing criminal responsibility. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Clinical personality assessment: Practical approaches (2nd ed., pp. 452–465). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M., Washburn, J. J., & Pikus, A. K. (2005). Detecting mental disorder in juvenile detainees: Who receives services. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 1773–1780.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tetterton, V. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2007). More is sometimes better: Increased mitigating evidence and sentencing leniency. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wormith, J. S., Olver, M. E., Stevenson, H. E., & Girard, L. (2007). The long-term prediction of offender recidivism using diagnostic, personality, and risk/need approaches to offender assessment. Psychological Services, 4, 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario J. Scalora
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of NebraskaLincoln

Personalised recommendations