Forecasting the impact of the federal sentencing guidelines

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which created the U.S. Sentencing Commission, required that the commisson consider prison capacity in drafting sentencing guidelines. As part of the commission's efforts to meet this requirement, we developed a computer simulation capable of projecting the impact of the commission's guidelines on future sentences and prison populations. According to our projections, “straight” probation sentences will be reduced significantly under the guidelines. However, reducing the use of probation will generate only modest demands on the prisons, and then mostly for community corrections phased in over the course of 5 years. We also project that, while average time served for violent offenses will increase substantially, average time served for most property crimes will remain largely the same. Finally, while we forecast that federal prison populations will grow markedly by the end of this century, this is more a result of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and the career offender provision of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 than a result of the guidelines.     

Mental health expert witnesses: Of science and crystal balls

This article reviews the history of and basis for mental health testimony. It surveys the roles of such experts in the legal system and the concomitant problems with current approaches. Finally, it suggests specific reforms that may improve the use of mental health experts in legal proceedings.     

Expert evidence by psychologists: Sometimes problematic and often premature

This article provides a critical review of two major types of expert evidence: (a) clinical assessments, and (b) generalizations drawn from psychological research. Strong arguments both for and against both types of testimony have been offered by legal experts and psychologists. These arguments are evaluated and the conclusion is drawn that there are two fundamental problems for psychologists in the role of expert. First, the types of assessments clinicians are asked to make (e.g., concerning the accused's mental state at the time of committing the offense) may exceed the capacity of the discipline; such assessments are problematic. Second, the research foundation that psychologists employ in court does not always apply to the court situation in the way experts imply; the application of laboratory research findings to real world contexts is sometimes premature. The article concludes with an admonition that psychologists should adopt a more conservative response to requests to provide expert evidence.     

Psychiatric malpractice in the military

Available data indicates that the incidence of malpractice in military psychiatry, involving both civilian and active duty beneficiaries, is the lowest of all specialties and may be lower than in the civilian sector. Recovery for malpractice damages by means of claim versus suit is restricted to civilian patients; active duty service members recover through a special disability system. The federal government provides military psychiatrists with considerable protection from personal financial loss when involved in malpractice, but there may be limits to that protection. There have been recent efforts to criminally prosecute military physicians in some instances. A registry review of military psychiatry malpractice cases from 1978 to 1987provides a profile of the malpractice situation and suggests areas of practice that need vigilance. The Department of Defense has established a broad-based, comprehensive program of quality assurance and risk management in the interest of maximizing the benefit of medical care and minimizing substandard practice.     

Principles in judgment/decision making research pertinent to legal proceedings

Principles in the judgment/decision making literature relevant to the legal community are reviewed. These principles are divided into four areas: the decision process itself, communicating a judgment to others, evaluating a decision, and possible ways of “debiasing.” Several influences on the decision process are enumerated, among them being insufficient consideration of base rates, selective memory for relevant material, the framing of the decision in either the domain of losses or the domain of gains, and consideration of the “cues to causation.” Particular attention is paid to suboptimal consideration of covariation information. In communicating the decision to others the two most prominent findings are overconfidence in expressing one's decision and the inability to describe accurately the bases of one's decision. Evaluating a decision is plagued by two biases. The first is the hindsight bias. After an event has occurred we tend to exaggerate how easily we could have predicted the event beforehand. The second is the outcome bias. We tend to base our evaluation of the decision upon the evaluation of the outcome. Among the debiasing techniques mentioned are the admonition to “consider the opposite” of the preferred option, the reduction of reliance on memory, and the use of decision aids.     

How and when to correct for juror hindsight bias in mental health malpractice litigation: Some preliminary observations

This article examines the hindsight bias in the context of mental health malpractice litigation, analyzes various legal mechanisms for dealing with the bias, and discusses whether the law should strive for debiasing in all mental health malpractice cases.     

Counseling Gay Men with AIDS: Human Dimensions

As the incidence of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) becomes more widespread, individuals with AIDS will present themselves for counseling in both public and private settings, and counselors will need to become familiar with the psychological manifestations of the AIDS virus. This article provides case material that demonstrates the emotional responses of gay men to AIDS. Specifically, denial, anger, rage, guilt, and shame are discussed with an emphasis on the human dimensions of AIDS.     

Cross-sex comparisons: A word of caution

A cross-sex difference on one variable is often hypothesized to be related to a gender difference on a second variable. However, caution should be exercised in making such comparative hypotheses. We gathered the expected and actual examination grades for 168 female and 163 male college students. As in prior research, males had higher expectancies than females (p<.05). But analysis of the intrasex regression equations indicated that the relationship of expectancies to performance was different for women than it was for men. Thus, a cross-sex difference in expectancies did not correspond to a parallel difference in grades. This finding highlights the potential hazards of making certain cross-sex comparisons, and we argue for more caution in their application.