Article Summary: Review
Article One Summary- Review:
Research Problem: The researchers had based their research on the argument that though the actuarial methods for assessing violence risk (such as VRAG as proposed by Harris et al. and Quinsey et al.) and other non- actuarial methods for assessing violence risk (such as HCR-20), but these methods may not have kept up with empirical or practical development.
The emphasis was on the fact that few forensic clinicians were cognizant of the empirical predictors related to later incidents of violence in their patients. The researchers had provided other examples that showed that current prediction regarding violent outcomes had mostly derived from static relationship between the outcomes and the predictors (they are measured only once such as the age at the time of first crime and juvenile criminal record of the adult offender- it should have been coupled with the age at release which showed that change over time. Thus the dynamic aspect such as age, history of substance abuse and anti-social attitude are not taken into consideration. Another issue highlighted by the researcher that hinders the development and improvement in forensic practice related to violence risk is the attitude of the clinicians towards the instruments used for the assessment. The third issue was the doubt itself that adjusted actuarial scores would predict better than the unadjusted scores in decision making about forensic patients.
Significance of the Research: The researcher had emphasized that the quality aspect of the forensic clinical practice is extremely vital since forensic decisions do follow clinical advice. This research is important in the manner that it had attempted to present a systematic improvement design for both forensic clinical practices, improvements in assessment of risk of violence and tribunal performance.
Research Methodology: Three studies were conducted- first study involved coding (from clinical files) and examination of 104 tribunal hearings. The researchers had used different scales for different variables such as they had used 4-point ordinal scale to code the decisions of tribunal; another 5 point ordinal scale was used to code Psychiatrists’ oral testimony at the time of hearing. This study had followed the research conducted by Hilton and Simmons in 2001 and its focus was that good forensic decisions must take in consideration the actuarial scores developed and tested in same population. The second study was linked with the study 1 and assessed the clinical presentation of the forensic patients. The purpose of this study was to analyze what aspects of presentations had predicted violence while hospitalized patients were released. The researcher had also examined the patients already vulnerable in the community. The third study was conducted with the help of survey in which opinions of the clinicians were sought to determine important factors which affect their risk-related advice to trial committee. In total, 236 questionnaires were distributed and out of them 157 were returned.
Results: Study 1: it was found that psychiatric witness and tribunal decision were strongly and positively correlated (r (102) = .76, p<.001), tribunal decision was positively and strongly correlated with psychiatric testimony (r (102) = .88, p<.001). These scores depicted that forensic clinicians’ advices to the trial committee/tribunal had improved as compared to research conducted by Hilton and Simmons in 2001. There was another important association found between PCL-R scores (actuarial risk) and decision of the tribunal (r (98) = .26, p<.05) but not with VRAG. It was also found that patients with highest VRAG scores were least likely to be transferred. The stepwise regression analysis revealed that team recommendation (R=.77, R2=.60, F(1, 102)= 149.66, p<.001), and psychiatric testimony (R= .79, R2= .62, F(2, 101)¼83.70, p<.001) were parsimonious.
Study 2: It was found that fraudulence, self-interest, and rule breaking were the most significant features of clinical presentations that could positively foretell the violent outcomes. Furthermore, withdrawal from social activities, conflict in family, side effects of medicines and other mental illness were found to be negatively linked to violent recidivism.
Study 3: It was found that assaultiveness was the most important factor considered by clinicians that affected their risk-related advice to trial committee. The other important factors include refuting the problems, conformity to medication procedure, threatening to harm physically, and sexual misconduct.
Article Two Summary- Review:
Research Problem: It has been normally found that the lawyers or the judges could question the suitability of the jurors in any trial case. These jurors could be excluded from any case if the lawyers or judges think that they might be unable or unwilling to put aside their strong attitude or feeling, religious beliefs regarding death penalties. The incidents were rising substantially where lawyers have used peremptory challenges for the exclusion of jurors. However, race and gender were the aspects where these lawyers and judges could not exclude any juror. The researchers had highlighted that if legal issues were put aside, there was no evidence that excluding jurors based on religion could be a good method for lawyers to select a jury. This argument was supported by few studies that revealed that jurors’ behaviors are mostly affected by attitudes and demographics and jurors should be analyzed for pro death and after death qualification. Issues have arisen since numerous lawyers believed that religion directly affects the death sentence decision of the juror where as Psychological research has not yet provide coherent evidence to support this belief. Therefore, in this present research, the researchers had attempted to find out whether there is a difference in religious characteristics of individuals giving pro-death penalties as compared to those giving anti-death penalties. The research would also seek to examine the same relation after death qualification and the effect of religious variables on death sentence decisions.
Significance of the Research: The researchers had mentioned that though previous literature has been very helpful but none of the studies had actually answered the questions posed in current study. This research is based on previous ones and will provide a comprehensive analysis of link of religion, demographics with death penalty decisions.
Methodology: After advertisements were given in newspapers and flyers were sent out, 994 people had responded. All were compensated $20 each. But due to age factor, six members had quit as they were having difficulty in reading the material provided. Almost 63% of the sample was females and 88% of the sample was white with ages ranging from 18-93 years. Nearly 50% of the participants were Protestant, 21% were Catholic while Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheist, Buddhists and others form smaller portions of the sample. Also 14% mentioned that they had belonged to no particular religion/faith. After taking the consent of all, they were asked about their attitude towards questionnaire based on death qualification and penalty. Then all were provided with a summary and judge’s instructions for the trial (based on trial State versus Daniels in 1994). They were given a verdict form to make their own decisions and later they answered a questionnaire related to their demographics and attitude towards religion. A very important question regarding beliefs regarding God’s attitude towards death penalty was also asked.
1st: H0: Individuals either in favor or have doubts on death penalty would differ on religious dimensions.
2nd: H0: The Hypothesis 1 would remain same after death qualification.
3rd: H0: The regression model would show and explain increased variance in sentence verdicts containing demographics, religious factors and death penalty attitudes.
Results: Chi square and simple regression was used for this study. The answers of respondents formed four response categories which were then simplified in to two categories; first group that favors death penalty (n= 477) and the other group doubting the death penalty. The reliability of two religious characteristics was found reliable (devotionalism with Cronbach’s alpha = .67 and fundamentalism with Cronbach’s alpha = .64). However evangelism for not found reliable with Cronbach’s alpha = .24. Therefore, two items that were not strongly correlated were omitted and the new scale was found reliable with Cronbach’s alpha = .78.
The study did find a link to whether the people doubting or favoring death penalty would differ in religious characteristics. It was found that people supporting death penalty were Protestants (Χ2 (1) = 12.80) and males (Χ2 (1) = 16.581). Also the people who had doubted the death penalty had emphasized on their religious beliefs (t (964) = –5.940) and they did not believed that God had supported death penalty. So firth hypothesis was supported. The second hypothesis was also not rejected; for this analysis n = 813 (containing only those indicated that their beliefs were not very strong to affect their decisions). Almost 88% were white with 61% females with ages ranging from 18-89 years. More than 50% were Protestants and 450 gave the decision in favor of death penalty.
The last hypothesis had examined the link of religious variables with sentence decisions. The demographic variables had explained a significant proportion of the variance (F (3,811) = 22.518, p < .001, r2 = .077). Similarly when the religious variables were added in the model, they had explained more portion of the variance than the previous one (F (11,800) = 4.842, p < .001, r2 change = .058). The overall model was also found significant (F (14,800) = 8.881, p < .001,
r2 = .135).
References:
McKee, S.A., Harris, G.T., & Rice, M.E. (2007). Improving forensic tribunal decisions: The role of the clinician. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 485-506.
Miller, M. K., & Hayward, R. D. (2008). Religious characteristics and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 113-23.
