How reliable are forensic evaluations of legal sanity?
When different clinicians evaluate the same criminal defendant's legal sanity, do they reach the same conclusion? Because Hawaii law requires multiple, independent evaluations when questions about legal sanity arise, Hawaii allows for the first contemporary study of the reliability of legal san...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Law and human behavior Vol. 37; no. 2; p. 98 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
United States
01.04.2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 1573-661X, 1573-661X |
| Online Access: | Get more information |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | When different clinicians evaluate the same criminal defendant's legal sanity, do they reach the same conclusion? Because Hawaii law requires multiple, independent evaluations when questions about legal sanity arise, Hawaii allows for the first contemporary study of the reliability of legal sanity opinions in routine practice in the United States. We examined 483 evaluation reports, addressing 165 criminal defendants, in which up to three forensic psychiatrists or psychologists offered independent opinions on a defendant's legal sanity. Evaluators reached unanimous agreement regarding legal sanity in only 55.1% of cases. Evaluators tended to disagree more often when a defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense. But evaluators tended to agree more often when they agreed about diagnosing a psychotic disorder, or when the defendant had been psychiatrically hospitalized shortly before the offense. In court, judges followed the majority opinion among evaluators in 91% of cases. But when judges disagreed with the majority opinion, they usually did so to find defendants legally sane, rather than insane. Overall, this study indicates that reliability among practicing forensic evaluators addressing legal sanity may be poorer than the field has tended to assume. Although agreement appears more likely in some cases than others, the frequent disagreements suggest a need for improved training and practice. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | When different clinicians evaluate the same criminal defendant's legal sanity, do they reach the same conclusion? Because Hawaii law requires multiple, independent evaluations when questions about legal sanity arise, Hawaii allows for the first contemporary study of the reliability of legal sanity opinions in routine practice in the United States. We examined 483 evaluation reports, addressing 165 criminal defendants, in which up to three forensic psychiatrists or psychologists offered independent opinions on a defendant's legal sanity. Evaluators reached unanimous agreement regarding legal sanity in only 55.1% of cases. Evaluators tended to disagree more often when a defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense. But evaluators tended to agree more often when they agreed about diagnosing a psychotic disorder, or when the defendant had been psychiatrically hospitalized shortly before the offense. In court, judges followed the majority opinion among evaluators in 91% of cases. But when judges disagreed with the majority opinion, they usually did so to find defendants legally sane, rather than insane. Overall, this study indicates that reliability among practicing forensic evaluators addressing legal sanity may be poorer than the field has tended to assume. Although agreement appears more likely in some cases than others, the frequent disagreements suggest a need for improved training and practice.When different clinicians evaluate the same criminal defendant's legal sanity, do they reach the same conclusion? Because Hawaii law requires multiple, independent evaluations when questions about legal sanity arise, Hawaii allows for the first contemporary study of the reliability of legal sanity opinions in routine practice in the United States. We examined 483 evaluation reports, addressing 165 criminal defendants, in which up to three forensic psychiatrists or psychologists offered independent opinions on a defendant's legal sanity. Evaluators reached unanimous agreement regarding legal sanity in only 55.1% of cases. Evaluators tended to disagree more often when a defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense. But evaluators tended to agree more often when they agreed about diagnosing a psychotic disorder, or when the defendant had been psychiatrically hospitalized shortly before the offense. In court, judges followed the majority opinion among evaluators in 91% of cases. But when judges disagreed with the majority opinion, they usually did so to find defendants legally sane, rather than insane. Overall, this study indicates that reliability among practicing forensic evaluators addressing legal sanity may be poorer than the field has tended to assume. Although agreement appears more likely in some cases than others, the frequent disagreements suggest a need for improved training and practice. When different clinicians evaluate the same criminal defendant's legal sanity, do they reach the same conclusion? Because Hawaii law requires multiple, independent evaluations when questions about legal sanity arise, Hawaii allows for the first contemporary study of the reliability of legal sanity opinions in routine practice in the United States. We examined 483 evaluation reports, addressing 165 criminal defendants, in which up to three forensic psychiatrists or psychologists offered independent opinions on a defendant's legal sanity. Evaluators reached unanimous agreement regarding legal sanity in only 55.1% of cases. Evaluators tended to disagree more often when a defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense. But evaluators tended to agree more often when they agreed about diagnosing a psychotic disorder, or when the defendant had been psychiatrically hospitalized shortly before the offense. In court, judges followed the majority opinion among evaluators in 91% of cases. But when judges disagreed with the majority opinion, they usually did so to find defendants legally sane, rather than insane. Overall, this study indicates that reliability among practicing forensic evaluators addressing legal sanity may be poorer than the field has tended to assume. Although agreement appears more likely in some cases than others, the frequent disagreements suggest a need for improved training and practice. |
| Author | Gowensmith, W Neil Boccaccini, Marcus T Murrie, Daniel C |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: W Neil surname: Gowensmith fullname: Gowensmith, W Neil email: william.gowensmith@du.edu organization: Graduate School of Professional Psychology, Forensic Psychology Program, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208, USA. william.gowensmith@du.edu – sequence: 2 givenname: Daniel C surname: Murrie fullname: Murrie, Daniel C – sequence: 3 givenname: Marcus T surname: Boccaccini fullname: Boccaccini, Marcus T |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22775304$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNj0tLxDAUhYOMOA_d-AMkSzfV5tW0K5FhdIQBNwruyk16q5FMMyatMv_eoiN4FueexXcunDmZdKFDQs5ZfsVyoa_9m8l_xI7IjCktsqJgL5N_eUrmKb2PRFXm6oRMOddaiVzOSLEOXzSid2A8UohI2xCxS85S_AQ_QO9Cl2hoqcdX8DRB5_r9zSk5bsEnPDvcBXm-Wz0t19nm8f5hebvJQGjej94YxqSxtmyMrpRFha1qrMQWVSGMlkxoo4TSSstSlhWitFA2VYEwliq-IJe_f3cxfAyY-nrrkkXvocMwpJoJroQQXMgRvTigg9liU--i20Lc139b-Tfq91cB |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1002_bsl_2532 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijlp_2023_101947 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijlp_2020_101666 crossref_primary_10_1055_a_1406_0356 crossref_primary_10_1177_0081246316678763 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijlp_2019_101507 crossref_primary_10_1080_15228932_2015_1051447 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41398_019_0628_x crossref_primary_10_1186_s12888_022_03831_4 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0963180121000165 crossref_primary_10_1080_14789949_2020_1771402 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijlp_2015_08_015 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41398_018_0274_8 crossref_primary_10_1080_24732850_2023_2249455 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scijus_2020_09_006 crossref_primary_10_1080_24732850_2021_2010320 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyg_2024_1309909 crossref_primary_10_1177_0306624X221086548 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijlp_2017_01_002 crossref_primary_10_1080_24732850_2021_1871795 crossref_primary_10_1177_0093854819839746 crossref_primary_10_1002_bsl_2618 crossref_primary_10_1002_bsl_2436 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12152_019_09421_8 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijlp_2025_102082 crossref_primary_10_1002_bsl_2344 crossref_primary_10_1002_bsl_70006 crossref_primary_10_1002_bsl_2345 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_forsciint_2020_110652 crossref_primary_10_1080_24732850_2022_2104146 crossref_primary_10_1002_bsl_2484 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejpal_2016_02_004 crossref_primary_10_1080_14789949_2015_1049193 crossref_primary_10_1002_bsl_2343 crossref_primary_10_3390_medicina60050764 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijlp_2013_11_020 crossref_primary_10_1097_NMD_0000000000000109 crossref_primary_10_1177_0081246316673523 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijlp_2015_08_028 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_legalmed_2023_102356 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scijus_2023_01_005 crossref_primary_10_1080_15228932_2015_1015363 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijlp_2019_101503 crossref_primary_10_1002_bsl_2348 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12207_024_09500_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_neubiorev_2024_105687 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41398_022_01871_8 crossref_primary_10_1080_13218719_2021_1938272 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1037/lhb0000001 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Psychology Sociology & Social History Law |
| EISSN | 1573-661X |
| ExternalDocumentID | 22775304 |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | --- -55 -5G -BR -Y2 -~C -~X .4L .86 0-V 0R~ 1SB 2.D 28- 29L 2JY 2P1 2VQ 3V. 4.4 53G 5GY 5QI 5VS 67Z 6NX 78A 7RZ 7WY 7X7 85S 88E 8AO 8FI 8FJ 8FL 8G5 8TC 8UJ 8VB AACLI AAIAL AARHV AAYZH ABACO ABIVO ABMNI ABNCP ABQSL ABTEG ABUWG ACBXY ACHQT ACNCT ACOMO ACPQG ACYUM ADBBV ADEPB ADIMF ADINQ ADKPE ADMHG ADNFJ ADRFC ADUOI AEFIE AEGNC AEHFB AEUPB AFACB AFBBN AFEXP AFFNX AFGCZ AFKRA AFLOW AFXCU AGJBK AGQRV AHBYD AHEHV AHKAY AHMBA AHQJS AHSBF AJPNJ AKVCP ALIPV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALSLI AMKLP AQSKT AQUVI ARALO AWKKM AZQEC AZXWR BA0 BBWZM BENPR BEZIV BGNMA BGRYB BHRNT BPHCQ BVXVI CAG CCPQU CGNQK CGR COF CS3 CSCUP CUY CVF DL5 DU5 DWQXO D~- EBS EBU ECM EHE EIF EJD EKAWT EPA F5P FEDTE FM. FRNLG FTD FYUFA GNUQQ GROUPED_ABI_INFORM_COMPLETE GROUPED_ABI_INFORM_RESEARCH GUQSH GXS H13 HF~ HG5 HG6 HGD HISYW HLICF HMCUK HVGLF HZ~ I09 IHE ISO IXC IZQ I~X JAV JENOY JST K1G K60 K6~ KDC KOV KOW LAK M0C M0O M0T M1P M2M M2O M4Y M86 N2Q NB0 NDZJH NPM NU0 O-J O9- O93 O9G O9I OAM OPA OVD P19 P2P PADUT PQBIZ PQBZA PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO PSYQQ Q2X QF4 QN5 QN7 QOK QOS QWB R4E R9I RHO RIG RNI ROL RPX RRX RSV RWL RXW RZC RZD S1Z S26 S27 S28 SBS SDH SDM SOJ T13 T16 TAA TAC TAF TEORI TH9 TSK U2A UKHRP VC2 VQA W2G W48 WHG WIP WK6 WK8 YQR YQT YZZ ZCA ZCG ZL0 ZMU ZPI ~8M ~EX 7X8 ABVOZ ADXHL PHGZM PHGZT PUEGO |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-a372t-a3db114bcc8db795ce5ef5dc4efe563b74137b53575748489ee4ca8d96eabcc92 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 72 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000317128800003&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1573-661X |
| IngestDate | Wed Oct 01 12:43:26 EDT 2025 Wed Feb 19 01:51:39 EST 2025 |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 2 |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-a372t-a3db114bcc8db795ce5ef5dc4efe563b74137b53575748489ee4ca8d96eabcc92 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| PMID | 22775304 |
| PQID | 1325333234 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1325333234 pubmed_primary_22775304 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2013-Apr 20130401 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2013-04-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 04 year: 2013 text: 2013-Apr |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
| PublicationTitle | Law and human behavior |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Law Hum Behav |
| PublicationYear | 2013 |
| SSID | ssj0009805 |
| Score | 2.3105457 |
| Snippet | When different clinicians evaluate the same criminal defendant's legal sanity, do they reach the same conclusion? Because Hawaii law requires multiple,... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | 98 |
| SubjectTerms | Adult Female Forensic Psychiatry Humans Insanity Defense Male Reproducibility of Results Substance-Related Disorders - complications |
| Title | How reliable are forensic evaluations of legal sanity? |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22775304 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1325333234 |
| Volume | 37 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000317128800003&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1LSwMxEB7UevDio75fRBBvS9sku0lOIqL0oKUHhd5KNjvBQunWrg_6753sbtuTIHjJLcsyOzvzTfLNNwDXmRYdiUZGaKg2kZ7bKPXGR9xrq1zgWlhZDptQvZ4eDEy_PnAralrlIiaWgTrLXTgjb1HVRMhEcCFvp-9RmBoVblfrERrr0BAEZQKlSw1WauFGlxTGTqxERHlosJAnFao1fivhUbvd-R1alinmcee_L7cL2zW4ZHeVN-zBGk6asP5kv5uwtYx08yacLttU2A2rGnRZpRcy34ekm3-zGY5HoamK2RkywrWB5u7YShq8YLlnY6T0woogoDG_PYDXx4eX-25UT1eIrFD8g9YspWIodU5nqTKxwxh9nDmJHuNEpAQ1hEpjQXgu6I1qgyid1ZlJ0NImww9hY5JP8BiYRG3TRHaUTgR9eJXKhJ7muKO8KBNvTuBqYbYheW-4krATzD-L4cpwJ3BU2X44rWQ2hpwrqqXa8vQPu89gi5dzKgKl5hwanv5dvIBN9_UxKmaXpVvQ2us__wBf2MGO |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How+reliable+are+forensic+evaluations+of+legal+sanity%3F&rft.jtitle=Law+and+human+behavior&rft.au=Gowensmith%2C+W+Neil&rft.au=Murrie%2C+Daniel+C&rft.au=Boccaccini%2C+Marcus+T&rft.date=2013-04-01&rft.issn=1573-661X&rft.eissn=1573-661X&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=98&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037%2Flhb0000001&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1573-661X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1573-661X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1573-661X&client=summon |