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

19 Scopus citations

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Expert testimony and professional judgment: Psychological Expertise and Commitment as a Sexual Predator after Hendricks'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this