Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Judicial Decision Making About Forensic Mental Health Evidence, Richard E. Redding, Daniel C. Murrie
Judicial Decision Making About Forensic Mental Health Evidence, Richard E. Redding, Daniel C. Murrie
Richard E. Redding
Judges play a central role in decision making in the justice system. This chapter reviews the extant empirical research on judicial decision making in criminal, juvenile, and civil cases. We discuss judges’ decision making about forensic mental health evidence introduced in these cases, judicial receptivity to various kinds of evidence, and their understanding of clinical and scientific evidence as well as the ways they make rulings about such evidence. We focus on decision making at the trial court level, in those arenas that are most relevant to the forensic mental health practitioner (psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) who is called …
Judicial Decision Making About Forensic Mental Health Evidence, Richard E. Redding, Daniel C. Murrie
Judicial Decision Making About Forensic Mental Health Evidence, Richard E. Redding, Daniel C. Murrie
Richard E. Redding
Judges play a central role in decision making in the justice system. This chapter reviews the extant empirical research on judicial decision making in criminal, juvenile, and civil cases. We discuss judges’ decision making about forensic mental health evidence introduced in these cases, judicial receptivity to various kinds of evidence, and their understanding of clinical and scientific evidence as well as the ways they make rulings about such evidence. We focus on decision making at the trial court level, in those arenas that are most relevant to the forensic mental health practitioner (psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) who is called …
The Effects Of Different Forms Of Risk Communication On Judicial Decision Making, Richard E. Redding, John Dolores
The Effects Of Different Forms Of Risk Communication On Judicial Decision Making, Richard E. Redding, John Dolores
Richard E. Redding
When mental health experts provide information to courts on the results of a risk assessment conducted on a defendant or patient, they engage in “risk communication.” We examined the effects of four different forms of risk communication (prediction, categorical, risk factors/risk management, or hybrid) on judges’ (n = 253) perceptions of risk assessment evidence introduced in a case where they must decide whether to release from the hospital an individual found not guilty by reason of insanity. Judges who received information in the risk factors/risk management form were more likely to release the patient than were those who received prediction …