Stanley L. Brodsky

Criminal Justice and Behavior An Editorial Retrospective

Official Publication of the International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology www.ia4cfp.org Philip R. Magaletta, Federal Bureau of Prisons Douglas B. Marlowe, University of Pennsylvania Mary McMurran, University of Nottingham, UK Edwin I. Megargee, Florida State University Holly A. Miller, Sam Houston State University Robert Morgan, Texas Tech University David Nussbaum, University of Toronto Scarborough; Ontario Shores, Whitby Randy Otto, University of South Florida Christina A. Pietz, U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners Devon Polaschek, Victoria University of Wellington Richard E. Redding, Chapman University Marnie E. Rice, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care Richard Rogers, University of North Texas R. Barry Ruback, Pennsylvania State University Randall T. Salekin, University of Alabama Jeffrey Sandler, Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene David J. Simourd, Aces Inc., Kingston, Ontario Brent Snook, Memorial University of Newfoundland Tony Toneatto, University of Toronto Glenn D. Walters, Kutztown University Jennifer Wareham, Wayne State University Stephen Wormith, University of Saskatchewan Michael G. Aamodt, Radford University Curt R. Bartol, Glenville, New York Kevin M. Beaver, Florida State University Craig Bennell, Carleton University Guy Bourgon, Public Safety Canada Stanley L. Brodsky, University of Alabama Barry R. Burkhart, Auburn University David DeMatteo, Drexel University Naomi J. Freeman, New York State Office of Mental Health David S. Glenwick, Fordham University Alan M. Goldstein, John Jay College of Criminal Justice J. Thomas Grisso, University of Massachusetts R. Karl Hanson, Public Safety Canada Robert D. Hare, University of British Columbia Kirk Heilbrun, Drexel University Jaime Henderson, Temple University Robert Homant, University of Detroit–Mercy Kayleen Islam-Zwart, Eastern Washington University J. B. Kingree, Clemson University Calvin M. Langton, University of Toronto Arthur J. Lurigio, Loyola University BOOK REVIEW EDITOR: Joseph Eastwood ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Jody L. Sundt MANAGING EDITOR: Margaret J. Freeland Braun EDITORIAL ASSISTANT: Breanna Schlingheyde FOUNDING EDITOR: Stanley L. Brodsky

Family Violence and Juvenile Sex Offending The Potential Mediating Role of Psychopathic Traits and Negative Attitudes Toward Women

Juvenile sex offenders were compared to other juvenile offenders in the degree of violence against women they witnessed in their families of origin. Poor impulse control, a callous and unemotional interpersonal style, and sexist attitudes toward women were tested as potential mediators of this relation. Participants were 70 incarcerated juvenile males, ages 13 to 18, from three offender categories: 23 sex offenders, 17 violent offenders, and 30 noncontact offenders. Results indicated that the witnessing of severe domestic violence was related not only to juvenile sex offending but to contact offending in general. There were no group differences on measures of poor impulse control or sexist attitudes toward women. However, sex offenders were found to have more callous and unemotional traits than other offenders. Therefore, although these traits do not mediate the effects of witnessing family violence, they do seem to be important in distinguishing juvenile sex offenders from other juvenile offenders.

Clinical evaluations for transfer of juveniles to criminal court: current practices and future research.

Completing clinical evaluations of juveniles considered for transfer to criminal court requires specialized expertise. However, there is little empirical foundation upon which they can be based. Within each of the three major evaluation domains (amenability to treatment, risk for future violence, and sophistication/maturity), we ask the following questions: a) Can forensic examiners properly assess this area, and if so using what tools?; b) How can social science research clarify the transfer evaluation, particularly as it is impacted by systems issues?; and c) How should the evaluation be structured? In doing so, we review clinical suggestions for completing these evaluations and identify pertinent research directions. A number of general issues specific to these evaluations are also discussed.

Differential Impact of Mitigating Evidence in Capital Case Sentencing

ABSTRACT Case law delineates the importance placed on mitigation, but both the psychological and legal literature are inconclusive about the use and effectiveness of biopsychosocial mitigating factors during sentencing in capital trials. The present study surveyed a diverse group of undergraduate participants and found the following circumstances to be most mitigating: mental retardation, hospitalization for a mental illness, no prior criminal record, major head injuries, schizophrenia, and history of childhood physical or sexual abuse. The participants found alcohol/drug dependence and alcohol/drug intoxication to be aggravating circumstances. The effectiveness of biopsychosocial mitigating factors, the need for mental health professionals to conduct mitigation evaluations, and implications for clinical practice are discussed.

In the wake of a negligent release law suit

Several staff members at a state psychiatric hospital were found negligent in a jury trial for having released a psychiatric patient who subsequently killed a member of the plaintiffs family. This study explored the impact of the law suit on the hospital staff members as individuals and on the functioning of the institution. Self-report measures revealed that both named defendants and nondefendant staff experienced symptoms of emotional disturbance associated with the litigation. Self-report measures suggest that the law suit was not instructive in any meaningful way regarding improved procedures for subsequent release decision making. Archival data indicate that the staff did release significantly fewer patients during the trial and follow-up period than prior to the litigation. Results are discussed in the context of Wexlers concept of therapeutic jurisprudence.

Development of a Litigaphobia Scale: Measurement of Excessive Fear of Litigation

The present investigation was directed toward the development of a psychometrically sound instrument that would permit measurement and understanding of the phenomenon of litigaphobia. An initial item pool of 143 items was subjected to a Thurstone analysis. 47 items survived this screening for low ambiguity and uniform spread of tearfulness. These 47 items were administered to 123 physicians and psychologists in a six-point Likert format. The Kuder-Richardson-20 split-half analysis was .90. Next a series of factor analyses were performed. A main factor was identified as generalized litigaphobia and a second factor was labelled invulnerability to litigation. A Guttman scaling procedure for Factor I yielded a four-item scale with a reproducibility coefficient of .92.

The Influence of Victim Impact Statements on Sentencing in Capital Cases

ABSTRACT Victim Impact Statements are introduced during the sentencing phase of capital trials to allow family members of the victim to describe the financial, emotional, psychological, and physical affects the crime has had on their lives. Critics argue that this type of evidence is emotional and prejudicial information that leads to harsher sentences. The present study explored the influence of victim impact statements on juror decision-making in the presence of mitigation factors. The results showed that the presence of a victim impact statement in capital proceedings did not necessarily have a substantial affect on the acceptance of aggravation or mitigation issues. Participants were more likely to be lenient in sentencing in the presence of victim impact statements when there were mitigating circumstances such as mental retardation, hospitalization for a mental illness, schizophrenia, or sexual abuse as a child.

Jury selection in child sex abuse trials: a case analysis.

Child sex abuse cases have been the target of considerable psycho-legal research. The present paper offers an analysis of psychological constructs for jury selection in child sex abuse cases from the defense perspective. The authors specifically delineate general and case-specific jury selection variables. General variables include authoritarianism, dogmatism, need for cognition, pretrial knowledge, and race/socioeconomic status. Case-specific variables include sexual attitudes, homonegativity, juror abuse history, and beliefs about children. The paper also provides a factual background of a representative case, incorporates relevant case law, identifies sources for voir dire and juror questionnaire items, and discusses lessons from the primary authors first experience as a trial consultant for the defense.

Ethical and professional demands for forensic mental health professionals in the post-Atkins era.

Defendants with impairment in psychological functioning are the locus of considerable discussion, research, and practice debates in forensic mental health (see, e.g., Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997). If the depth of psychological-legal impairment is not substantial, people with mental retardation may be deemed competent to participate in the legal process. However, in June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), held that execution of retarded persons is cruel and unusual punishment, ruling that

Clinical implications of stigma in HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections

This study sought to identify stigma differences between HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Interviewees from Alabama, USA (n = 537) rated two types of stigma (damage to social reputation and ‘moral weakness’) for seven infections ranging from ‘nuisance’ conditions (e.g. pubic lice) to life-threatening disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS). When asked which of the seven STIs would be most damaging to reputation, 74.8% of respondents chose HIV/AIDS. However, when asked to choose which STI represented moral weakness in infected persons, HIV/AIDS was rated as significantly lower than the other STIs, which suggests that HIV/AIDS is perceived differently than non-HIV STIs. This study addresses the possibility that advances in public awareness of HIV/AIDS have not necessarily been extrapolated into awareness of other STIs. Clinicians should be aware of these high levels of stigma as potential barriers to treatment for all STIs. Public health officials should consider the impact of undifferentiated stigma on STI prevention messages.