Preventative Detention Decisions: Reliance on Expert Assessments and Evidence of Partisan Allegiance within the Canadian Context

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine judges' written reasons for sentencing in preventative detention hearings and the expert risk assessment reports presented, to determine the level of reliance placed on expert risk assessment reports and to examine the presence of partisan allegiance within the Canadian context. Results demonstrated that judges' decisions were consistent with expert assessments in terms of risk, treatment amenability, and risk management. Experts' ratings of treatment amenability and risk management were also significant predictors of the designation outcome, indicating that judges rely on this information in making their final decision. Finally, there was evidence of partisan allegiance, with prosecution-retained Psychopathy Checklist-Revised scores being significantly higher than defense-retained experts' scores. The results have implications for the development of consistent guidelines for the communication of risk, treatment amenability, and management information.

Using Graphs to Improve Violence Risk Communication

“…Daily decisions about grounds privileges and community access are made in-hospital on the basis of clinical factors, within the limits set by review boards (e.g., Quinsey, Coleman, Jones, & Altrows, 1997). Review board decisions, in turn, are strongly correlated with clinicians’ recommendations (e.g., Hilton & Simmons, 2001; McKee, Harris, & Rice, 2007; Wilson, Crocker, Nicholls, Charette, & Seto, 2015) as are comparable judicial and conditional release decisions (e.g., Blais, 2015; Guy, Kusaj, Packer, & Douglas, 2015; Konečni & Ebbesen, 1984). Consequently, Study 2 concentrated on the use of graphs to improve violence risk communication among practicing forensic clinicians.…”

Dangerous, depraved, and death‐worthy: A meta‐analysis of the correlates of perceived psychopathy in jury simulation studies

“…Largely because of this established relationship with aggression, clinical measurement instruments designed to assess psychopathic traits increasingly have been introduced into legal cases. For example, such instruments are frequently used by mental health expert witnesses and discussed in judicial opinions (Blais, ; DeMatteo et al, ; Viljoen, MacDougall, Gagnon, & Douglas, ; Viljoen, McLachlan, & Vincent, ). The disorder is even mentioned by name in some legislation, such as US civil commitment laws regarding sexually violent predators (Edens, Petrila, & Kelley, ).…”

“…For example, in the USA, scores from the Hare Psychopathy Checklist‐Revised (PCL‐R; Hare, ) strongly predict clinicians’ perceptions of defendant dangerousness and statements they make regarding violence risk in court (DeMatteo et al, ). In Canada, experts’ PCL‐R scores impact judges’ determinations as to whether a defendant will receive a legal designation as a “Dangerous Offender,” which results in an indeterminate period of incarceration beyond that typically given to other convicted felons (see Blais, ). In addition, mental health examiners’ scores from Factor 1 of the PCL‐R, which taps personality traits such as remorselessness, manipulativeness, and grandiosity, predict whether California parole boards will release prison inmates back into the community (Guy, Kusaj, Packer, & Douglas, ).…”

Judicial decisions regarding expert evidence on violence risk assessment.

“…Although this study investigated judicial decisions in Dangerous Offender hearings, it focused solely on the PCL-R and did not examine whether and how VRAs more broadly contributed to hearing outcomes. Third, Blais (2015) examined whether judges relied on expert evidence and looked for evidence of partisan allegiance among experts in their opinions of risk and treatability in 83 Dangerous Offender and Long-Term Offender hearings in Canada.…”