Prosecution-retained versus court-appointed experts: Comparing and contrasting risk assessment reports in preventative detention hearings.

Abstract

The goal of this study was to compare the risk assessment reports of prosecution-retained (n = 43) and court-appointed experts (n = 68) within the context of preventative detention hearings on variables ranging from the information within the assessment reports (e.g., length) to the conclusions drawn in terms of risk and treatment amenability (e.g., categorical statements of risk). A separate section also focused specifically on psychopathy. Court-appointed expert assessments were significantly longer (d = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.01, 0.78]) and contained more information pertaining to risk factors (odds ratio [OR] = 4.48, 95% CI [1.21, 16.61]) and risk management (OR = 3.15, 95% CI [1.20, 8.25]). Both types of experts communicated risk assessment results in categorical terms and were highly likely to utilize actuarial scales. Less than half of all assessments contained information on dynamic or protective factors. Other than providing a total psychopathy score, the assessments contained very little additional information about the implications of this score for risk management or treatment amenability. Although the results indicate that risk assessment reports between prosecution-retained and court-appointed experts were more similar than they were different, it is also evident that, overall, reports should contain more information on dynamic risk factors and risk management in order to be useful in the context of preventative detention hearings.

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

“…Although the legislative changes were meant to place less emphasis on the adversarial nature of these proceedings by allowing the possibility of a court‐appointed expert, whether this is actually accomplished is still unknown. For example, results from the larger sample of expert assessments (see Blais & Forth, ) demonstrated that court‐appointed expert assessments were very similar to prosecution‐retained expert assessments with few exceptions. Additionally, judges in the current sample appeared to favor prosecution and court‐appointed experts equally as compared with cases where a defense‐retained expert was present.…”

“…In Canada, those factors are the offender's risk level, treatment amenability, and risk management. When the elements of the risk assessment reports were explored more broadly, it was evident that experts were still relying on categorical risk levels and, although they did list pertinent risk factors, there was little focus on dynamic risk and treatment amenability (for detailed analysis of the reports, see Blais & Forth, ).…”

“…A sample of 62 expert risk assessment reports (completed by 29 separate evaluators) presented within the cases for which a court transcript of the reasons for sentencing was available were also included in the study [this represents a sub‐sample of the expert risk assessments examined in Blais and Forth ()]. Risk assessment reports were completed by prosecution‐retained ( n = 24), defense‐retained ( n = 6), and court‐appointed experts ( n = 32).…”

“…The change to the legislation was expected to address the criticisms that preventative detention decisions relied too heavily on psychiatric testimony and overemphasized the adversarial nature of the proceedings (Rogers & Lynett, ). The changes, however, have done little to address these concerns; the majority of assessments are still completed by psychiatrists and 50% of proceedings still contain reports from competing sides (Blais & Forth, ). The changes have allowed for the inclusion of court‐appointed experts; however, there is currently limited evidence that court‐appointed experts would be an adequate solution to partisan allegiance effects (Blais & Forth, ).…”

“…The changes, however, have done little to address these concerns; the majority of assessments are still completed by psychiatrists and 50% of proceedings still contain reports from competing sides (Blais & Forth, ). The changes have allowed for the inclusion of court‐appointed experts; however, there is currently limited evidence that court‐appointed experts would be an adequate solution to partisan allegiance effects (Blais & Forth, ). Given that judges are often presented with competing risk assessment reports, an examination of the possibility of partisan allegiance within the Canadian context is warranted.…”