| (April Newsletter 2003 - 4) The researchers examined participants’ scores on the IRI which, while not directly measuring empathy, does measure ones’ knowledge of empathy. The PCL-R was used to identify offenders likely to be lacking empathy. Demographic and recidivism data were collected from offenders’ permanent records. Recidivism was defined as incurring new charges or a suspension/revocation of release. Psychometric test data were collected from clinical files. Program staff provided ratings of offenders’ performance during and after treatment. The IRI consists of 28 questions with four subsections. The subsections are perspective taking (the cognitive ability to feel concern for others), fantasy (ability to relate to fictitious characters), and per-sonal distress (ability to share the negative feelings of others). Staff ratings of offenders while in and after treatment were used to assess the effectiveness and impact of the empathy training. Two trained, independent raters scored the PCL-R by reviewing offender records. They classified 48 (72%) of the 68 men as non-psychopaths with a PCL-R score less than 30, (Note: In Minnesota some have been deemed a psychopath with a score of 28) and 19 (28%) of the population were classified as psychopaths with scores of 30 or more. There were no significant differences between violent offen-ders and sex offenders. The research concluded that there was only one marginally significant difference between psychopaths and non-psychopaths by the use of the IRI. Psychopaths scored marginally worse than non-psycho-paths on empathic concern, implying that they had less affective ability to feel concern for others. There were no significant correlations between IRI scores and the participants’ total PCL-R scores. Performance in the empathy module was not significantly related to any of the IRI post-treatment scores. PCL-R scores and staff ratings of performance while in treatment were not significantly related to recidivism. There were several differences on the IRI between those who re-offended and those who did not, but according to the authors, the results were inconsistent. Non-recidivists scored significantly better on the perspective taking subscale of the IRI than did the recidivists. Ex-offenders who re-offend scored significantly better on the personal distress scale than those who did not re-offend. This study illustrates some of the difficulties in measuring the impact of treatment programs. The lack of a relationship between the PCL-R scores and the IRI suggests that the latter probably does not mea-sure empathic awareness. And simply understanding the concept of empathy does not guarantee that one will practice it. The research suggests that the IRI should not be used to try to predict recidivism. The research also suggests that the PCL-R and the IRI would not satisfy the Frye test for Admissibility purposes. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). Recently the Second District Court of Illinois reversed a “jury’s verdict” finding an individual to be a “sexually violent person.” The Court concluded that since actuarial instruments have not “progressed beyond the experimental stage,” an expert’s testimony predicted upon the MnSOST, MnSOST-R, PRASOR, and Static-99 does not satisfy the Frye test for admissibility. People v. Dale L. Taylor (No. 00-MR-857, No date) The Frye standard, commonly known as the “general acceptance” test, provides that scientific evidence is admissible at trial (Note: Minnesota does not provide jury trials at this time) only if the methodology or scientific principle upon which the opinion is based is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. (Quoting Donaldson, 199 Ill.2d at 77, which in turn quoted Frye, 293 F. at 1014). According to the research done by Rachel Mulloy, W. Carson Smiley, and Diana Mawson, on the use of the PCL-R and the IRI actuarial instruments, there seems to be no statistical evidence demonstrating the reliability and accuracy of these instruments, which would satisfy the Frye test. For more information on the research using the PCL-R and the IRI, you may contact the: Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, 340 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KIA OP9; e-mail: reslib@magi.com THANK YOU! Citizens For Reform wishes to thank Dennis J. Elliott from Joliet, Illinois; Dan Fabian from Arcadia, Florida; and Robert Lefort from Atascadero, California for their continued correspondence and materials used in several publications of the newsletter. We appreciate your continued support and friendship. I Am a Criminal By R. Lee Wrights Yes, that’s right. I, R. Lee Wrights, being of sound mind and aging body, do solemnly acclaim and justly affirm that I am a criminal. And, if I do my job correctly, by the time you finish reading this you will realize that you are a criminal also; and, that something needs to be done about it. My premise is simply that government, not only at the federal level but in particularly at the state and local level, has grown so gorged and bloated that is has become virtually impossible for any of us to remain “law-abiding citizens.” In order to be law-abiding, one must first know and understand law. Now I ask you, in today’s society how many people really know, let alone understand, “the law?” Moreover, how many policemen relay know or, more importantly, understand the law? Do the lawyers and judges, who are charged with the protection of America’s most sacred document, even understand law? Judging from the number of appealed judgments these days, it would appear that even these “protectors of justice” are unable to effectively untangle the thicket of jurisprudence created by the endless loads of fertilizer produced by the various legislatures. |
|