Expert testimony and professional judgment: Psychological Expertise and Commitment as a Sexual Predator after Hendricks

Robert F. Schopp, Mario J Scalora, Marc Pearce

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Clinicians and social scientists exercise judgments and discharge responsibilities while fulfilling several different roles in interaction with a variety of legal institutions. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Daubert and Hendricks provide an opportunity to examine the defensible parameters of several of these roles. Daubert provides criteria for the admission of expert testimony in a variety of hearings, including commitment hearings held under statutes such as that at issue in Hendricks. The authors interpret these Daubert criteria as representing broader underlying principles that can provide useful guidance in establishing defensible parameters of participation in a variety of legal institutions by clinicians and social scientists.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)120-174
Number of pages55
JournalPsychology, Public Policy, and Law
Volume5
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1999

Fingerprint

Expert Testimony
social scientist
testimony
Hearing
expertise
Supreme Court Decisions
expert
commitment
Psychology
statute
Supreme Court
responsibility
participation
interaction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

Expert testimony and professional judgment : Psychological Expertise and Commitment as a Sexual Predator after Hendricks. / Schopp, Robert F.; Scalora, Mario J; Pearce, Marc.

In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 5, No. 1, 03.1999, p. 120-174.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d2a627a70f9543799918b8d89ea7bbf1,
title = "Expert testimony and professional judgment: Psychological Expertise and Commitment as a Sexual Predator after Hendricks",
abstract = "Clinicians and social scientists exercise judgments and discharge responsibilities while fulfilling several different roles in interaction with a variety of legal institutions. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Daubert and Hendricks provide an opportunity to examine the defensible parameters of several of these roles. Daubert provides criteria for the admission of expert testimony in a variety of hearings, including commitment hearings held under statutes such as that at issue in Hendricks. The authors interpret these Daubert criteria as representing broader underlying principles that can provide useful guidance in establishing defensible parameters of participation in a variety of legal institutions by clinicians and social scientists.",
author = "Schopp, {Robert F.} and Scalora, {Mario J} and Marc Pearce",
year = "1999",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.120",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "120--174",
journal = "Psychology, Public Policy, and Law",
issn = "1076-8971",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Expert testimony and professional judgment

T2 - Psychological Expertise and Commitment as a Sexual Predator after Hendricks

AU - Schopp, Robert F.

AU - Scalora, Mario J

AU - Pearce, Marc

PY - 1999/3

Y1 - 1999/3

N2 - Clinicians and social scientists exercise judgments and discharge responsibilities while fulfilling several different roles in interaction with a variety of legal institutions. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Daubert and Hendricks provide an opportunity to examine the defensible parameters of several of these roles. Daubert provides criteria for the admission of expert testimony in a variety of hearings, including commitment hearings held under statutes such as that at issue in Hendricks. The authors interpret these Daubert criteria as representing broader underlying principles that can provide useful guidance in establishing defensible parameters of participation in a variety of legal institutions by clinicians and social scientists.

AB - Clinicians and social scientists exercise judgments and discharge responsibilities while fulfilling several different roles in interaction with a variety of legal institutions. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Daubert and Hendricks provide an opportunity to examine the defensible parameters of several of these roles. Daubert provides criteria for the admission of expert testimony in a variety of hearings, including commitment hearings held under statutes such as that at issue in Hendricks. The authors interpret these Daubert criteria as representing broader underlying principles that can provide useful guidance in establishing defensible parameters of participation in a variety of legal institutions by clinicians and social scientists.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033266272&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033266272&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.120

DO - 10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.120

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0033266272

VL - 5

SP - 120

EP - 174

JO - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

JF - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

SN - 1076-8971

IS - 1

ER -