NCJ Number
130672
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 15 Issue: 2 Dated: special issue (April 1991) Pages: 139-163
Date Published
1991
Length
25 pages
Annotation
In decisions rendered over the past decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that laws providing for preventive detention and preventive execution do not violate Constitutional guarantees but instead provide a means of determining which individuals pose a current and future threat and removing those persons from society.
Abstract
However, this author points out that in each of these cases, the Court was presented with behavioral science data indicating that most predictions of dangerousness (from 51 to 95 percent) are later proven to be wrong. These data have come to the Court through expert testimony, oral arguments, and in amicus curiae briefs. The Court probably rejected the empirical data because of questions regarding their accuracy and validity, professional divisiveness on the issue, the inapposite nature of the studies which have not involved capital murderers, or because of pragmatic policy considerations. The Court's response has avoided the need to strike down laws, opened the possibility for a wide range of new crime prevention measures, and characterized a long tradition of skepticism in behavioral science data. The author suggests that behavioral scientists wishing to influence constitutional criminal law must ensure that their studies are methodologically and conceptually sound and might want to consider avenues other than appellate litigation. 173 notes (Author abstract modified)