scholarly journals The PCL–R and capital sentencing: A commentary on “Death is different” DeMatteo et al. (2020a).

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 519-522
Author(s):  
Robert D. Hare ◽  
Mark E. Olver ◽  
Keira C. Stockdale ◽  
Craig S. Neumann ◽  
Andreas Mokros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Capital Sentencing

The Death Penalty Trial: How Jury Sentencing Decisions Relate to Capital Sentencing Procedures

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda Wolbransky ◽  
Michael E. Keesler ◽  
Pamela Laughon ◽  
David DeMatteo
Keyword(s):  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Sentencing ◽  
Sentencing Decisions

Statement of concerned experts on the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised in capital sentencing to assess risk for institutional violence.

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Stephen D. Hart ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Marcus T. Boccaccini ◽  
Mark D. Cunningham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Capital Sentencing ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Institutional Violence ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised ◽  
Hare Psychopathy Checklist

"Dr. Death" and The Case for an Ethical Ban on Psychiatric and Psychological Predictions of Dangerousness in Capital Sentencing Proceedings

1983 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-428
Author(s):  
Charles P. Ewing
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Codes Of Ethics ◽  
Capital Sentencing ◽  
Professional Codes ◽  
Professional Codes Of Ethics

AbstractPsychiatric and psychological predictions of dangerousness are used in a number of American jurisdictions to convince a judge or jury that a convicted murderer should be sentenced to death. Empirical research has demonstrated, however, that psychiatric and psychological predictions of dangerousness generally are inaccurate. This Article describes the current use of such predictions in capital sentencing hearings and examines their status under existing professional codes of ethics. It argues that the rendering of these predictions by psychiatrists and psychologists is contrary to the scientific and healing traditions of their professions and urges psychiatrists and psychologists to adopt an ethical ban on predictions of dangerousness in the capital sentencing context.

Evaluations of Violence Risk in Capital Sentencing

2011 ◽  
pp. 260-284
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Daniel C. Murrie ◽  
Natalie M. Anumba ◽  
Michael E. Keesler
Keyword(s):  
Violence Risk ◽  
Capital Sentencing

Assessing Juror Understanding of Capital-Sentencing Instructions

1998 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Frank ◽  
Brandon K. Applegate
Keyword(s):  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Sentencing ◽  
Legal Policy ◽  
Capital Cases ◽  
Jury Duty ◽  
State Death ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Midwestern City

Although recent research has suggested that juror understanding of sentencing instructions in capital cases is limited, jurors in most states retain responsibility for determining whether a defendant receives the death penalty. Using data collected from 258 individuals who were called for jury duty in a midwestern city, the present study demonstrates that (1) jurors' comprehension of sentencing instructions is limited, (2) the particular areas of misunderstanding tend to place the defendant at a disadvantage, (3) juror understanding can be improved by rewriting state death penalty pattern instructions, and (4) comprehension levels also may be increased by providing jurors with a written copy of the instructions. Unfortunately, the effects that this research may have on legal policy are unclear.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document