Death Is Different: Reply to Olver et al. (2020)

In our "Statement of Concerned Experts on the Use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised [PCL-R] in Capital Sentencing to Assess Risk for Institutional Violence," DeMatteo et al. (2020) summarized the relevant empirical research and concluded that the PCL-R cannot and should not be used...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychology, public policy, and law public policy, and law, 2020-11, Vol.26 (4), p.511-518
Main Authors: DeMatteo, David, Hart, Stephen D, Heilbrun, Kirk, Boccaccini, Marcus T, Cunningham, Mark D, Douglas, Kevin S, Dvoskin, Joel A, Edens, John F, Guy, Laura S, Murrie, Daniel C, Otto, Randy K, Packer, Ira K, Reidy, Thomas J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adjudication
Antisocial Behavior
Checklist (Testing)
Facilities
Human
Legal Personnel
Prediction
Psychopathy
Risk Factors
Violence
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In our "Statement of Concerned Experts on the Use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised [PCL-R] in Capital Sentencing to Assess Risk for Institutional Violence," DeMatteo et al. (2020) summarized the relevant empirical research and concluded that the PCL-R cannot and should not be used to make predictions that an individual will engage in serious institutional violence with any reasonable degree of precision or accuracy in the context of capital sentencing decisions. In a solicited commentary, Olver et al. (2020) raised several concerns about our statement and presented new analyses of the research literature. In this reply, we identify crucial points about which Olver et al. disagreed with the statement and, after analyzing their concerns, conclude that their concerns are either (a) based on misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the statement, or (b) irrelevant to the purpose and content of our statement. We also conclude that it is not possible to properly evaluate the new analyses presented by Olver et al. in the absence of full technical detail that would permit adequate peer review.
ISSN:1076-8971
1939-1528
DOI:10.1037/law0000285