Psychopathy Checklist–Revised Use and Reporting Practices in Sexually Violent Predator Evaluations

Abstract

We surveyed evaluators who conduct sexually violent predator evaluations ( N = 95) regarding the frequency with which they use the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), their rationale for use, and scoring practices. Findings suggest that evaluators use the PCL-R in sexually violent predator cases because of its perceived versatility, providing information about both mental disorder and risk. Several findings suggested gaps between research and routine practice. For example, relatively few evaluators reported providing the factor and facet scores that may be the strongest predictors of future offending, and many assessed the combination of PCL-R scores and sexual deviance using deviance measures (e.g., paraphilia diagnoses) that have not been examined in available studies. There was evidence of adversarial allegiance in PCL-R score interpretation, as well as a "bias blind spot" in PCL-R and other risk measure (Static-99R) scoring; evaluators tended to acknowledge the possibility of bias in other evaluators but not in themselves. Findings suggest the need for evaluators to carefully consider the extent to which their practices are consistent with emerging research and to be attuned to the possibility that working in adversarial settings may influence their scoring and interpretation practices.

Is it all in the details? Effect of psychopathy communication format on laypeople's perceptions of legal outcomes

“…Additionally, in the majority of reviewed cases, psychopathy was used by the prosecution in an attempt to secure a conviction (Walsh & Walsh, 2006). Similar results have been found in other studies in both the United States and Canada, with the PCL-R being used to inform decisions of future dangerousness during sentencing and parole hearings (DeMatteo et al, 2014;Guy et al, 2015;, inform death penalty decisions in the States (DeMatteo et al, 2014), dangerous offender hearings in Canada (Blais & Forth, 2014b;Edens et al, 2014), and sexually violent predator hearings in the United States (Boccaccini et al, 2017;DeMatteo & Edens, 2006;DeMatteo et al, 2014).…”

“…Intensifying the problem, case law reviews have indicated that the admissibility of expert mental health evidence about psychopathy is rarely challenged and, in the few cases where it is challenged, it is rarely objected to on the basis of undue prejudice even considering the association between psychopathy and negative court outcomes (Boccaccini et al, 2017). Research has also suggested that the psychopathy label, among others, is used more frequently by the prosecution to paint a negative picture of the defendant (Edens & Cox, 2012).…”

Tipping the scales of justice: the role of forensic evaluations in the criminalization of mental illness

“…9 This training and infrastructure is crucial to for evaluators to attain minimum quality standards, as forensic evaluations are often complicated, requiring evaluators to consider difficult psychological, legal, and cultural nuances. 15,17,[42][43][44] Simply expanding the pool of eligible evaluator disciplines runs the serious risk of experts offering poorly formulated opinions, unless enough forensic training and infrastructure within that discipline exists.…”

“…A now well-established threat to reliability is bias of the evaluator toward the side that retained his/her services. 15,17,19 This "adversarial allegiance" effect is present even when evaluators score objective, structured risk assessments designed to mitigate subjective bias. 49 Earlier research has suggested evaluators' opinions are also influenced by the fees they earn.…”

“…Finally, a great deal of research demonstrates that many evaluators are biased by multiple internal and external factors. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Biased, unreliable, or low quality forensic mental health evaluations deteriorate the fairness of the justice system overall. Given the important systemic and individual impacts of forensic evaluations, it is critical that they are efficient, valid, reliable, and held to high standards of quality.…”