Dangerously misunderstood: Representative jurors' reactions to expert testimony on future dangerousness in a sexually violent predator trial.

Abstract

Past research examining the effects of psychological expert testimony concerning future dangerousness in sexual violent predator commitment trials has produced equivocal results on whether mock jurors are more influenced by intuitive clinical expert testimony than empirically based actuarial testimony. This study advances this line of research by examining these effects using a more ecologically valid sample of 156 venire jurors who watched a simulated, videotaped SVP trial based on a case transcript. As predicted, jurors were more influenced by the less scientific, clinical expert testimony. The data provided only limited support for a theoretical explanation based on Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST). The policy im- plications of these results are discussed. In the United States legal system, predictions of an individual's future likelihood of reoffense or violence have a long history. These predictions are employed in many legal determinations that have significant liberty implications for the individuals involved, from bail decisions to capital sentencing. In the last 20 years, a significant minority of states have adopted Sexually Violent Predator or Person laws (hereinafter SVP laws). These modified civil commitment laws allow for postincarceration civil confinement of sexual offenders who are found likely to commit future acts of sexual violence. In these legal adjudications, mental health experts proffer expert testimony on whether or not a specific individual poses a future danger. Yet, almost since the inception of dangerous- ness-based legal standards, the expertise of mental health professionals on these matters has been questioned (e.g., Krauss & Sales, 2001; LaFond, 2005; see Slobogin, 2006 for a detailed discussion of these issues). Historically, courts have been largely deaf to the cries of critics in these important legal decisions. Beginning with the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision inBare-