|
|
| Report warns against 'dangerousness' experts |
| By Houston Chronicle |
| Published: 04/05/2004 |
|
A report released last week by an organization that represents inmates on Texas' death row argues that experts' opinions about the "future dangerousness" of convicted defendants should not be considered during sentencing because they are usually wrong. "The alarming error rate in capital sentencing would not be tolerated in any other context," said Jim Marcus, executive director of the nonprofit Texas Defender Service. "Would you seek life-or-death advice from a physician who misdiagnosed patients 95 percent of the time?" The study examined the prison disciplinary history of 155 inmates who had been labeled "dangerous" by psychiatrists or psychologists during the sentencing phase of their trials. It found only eight -- 5 percent -- were later involved in what the Texas Department of Criminal Justice calls "serious assaults," which means they caused injuries that required more than basic first aid. Critics pointed out that at least 40 of those in the study were on death row, where they are locked down 23 hours each day and unlikely to injure anyone. But nearly a third of those 40 inmates, the study said, had had their sentences commuted to life and one was later declared innocent after spending years as a "model prisoner." The study, however, looked only at prison behavior -- which Diane Beckham, senior staff counsel of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, argued is only part of the equation. Jurors, she said, also must decide whether an inmate could present a danger if he or she were eventually released, even 40 years in the future. The study's "finding, while relevant, is narrow and it's only a portion of the future-dangerous equation which is only a portion of the death penalty inquiry," she said. Beckham and others acknowledged that there have been serious credibility issues with some experts used by Texas prosecutors, including one who used race as a factor in determining dangerousness. But she said an expert's opinion is usually only a small part of the evidence presented in the sentencing phase. The Texas Defender Service, a Houston- and Austin-based nonprofit, produced the study in collaboration with Dr. John Edens, an associate professor at Sam Houston State University who has done extensive research on predicting dangerousness. Nationwide, nine states permit testimony on future dangerousness and allow it to be considered as a factor in capital cases, though only Texas and Oregon require it. |
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think