English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

  Testimony about the future dangerousness of a person has become a central staple of many judicial processes. In settings such as bail, sentencing, and parole decisions, in rulings about the civil confinement of the mentally ill, and in custody decisions in a context of domestic violence, the assessment of a person's propensity towards physical or sexual violence is regarded as a deciding factor. These assessments can be based on two forms of expert testimony: actuarial or clinical. The purpose of this paper is to examine the scientific and epistemological basis of both methods of prediction or risk assessment. My analysis will reveal that this kind of expert testimony is scientifically baseless. The problems I will discuss will generate a dilemma for factfinders: on the one hand, given the weak predictive abilities of the branches of science involved, they should not admit expert clinical or actuarial testimony as evidence; on the other hand, there is a very strong tradition and a vast jurisprudence that supports the continued use of this kind of expert testimony. It is a clear case of the not so uncommon conflict between science and legal tradition. RESUMO:  O testemunho sobre a periculosidade futura de uma pessoa tem sido uma marca central de muitos processos judiciais. Em contextos tais como pagamento de fianca, proferimento de sentenca e decisoes sobre liberdade condicional, confinamento civil do doente mental e costodia em casos de violencia domestica, a avaliacao da propensao de uma pessoa a violencia fisica ou sexual e considerada um fator fundamental. Essas avaliacoes podem ser baseadas em duas formas de pericia: atuarial ou clinica. O proposito deste artigo e examinar a base cientifica e epistemologica de ambos os metodos de predicao ou de avaliacao de risco. Minha analise revelara que este tipo de pericia nao possui fundamento. Os problemas que serao discutidos gerarao um dilema para os investigadores dos fatos no processo judicial: por um lado, dadas as habilidades preditivas fracas dos ramos da ciencia envolvidos, nao deveriam admitir a pericia atuarial e clinica como meios de prova; por outro lado, ha uma tradicao muito forte e uma vasta jurisprudencia que da suporte ao uso continuo deste tipo de prova pericial. Este e um caso claro do nao tao incomum conflito entre a ciencia e a tradicao juridica.

The Prediction of Future Behavior: The Empty Promises of Expert Clinical and Actuarial Testimony