TY - JOUR
T1 - The PCL–R and capital sentencing
T2 - A commentary on “Death is different” DeMatteo et al. (2020a).
AU - Hare, Robert D.
AU - Olver, Mark E.
AU - Stockdale, Keira C.
AU - Neumann, Craig S.
AU - Mokros, Andreas
AU - Baskin-Sommers, Arielle
AU - Brand, Eddy
AU - Folino, Jorge
AU - Gacono, Carl
AU - Gray, Nicola S.
AU - Kiehl, Kent
AU - Knight, Raymond
AU - Leon-Mayer, Elizabeth
AU - Logan, Matthew
AU - Meloy, J. Reid
AU - Roy, Sandeep
AU - Salekin, Randall T.
AU - Snowden, Robert J.
AU - Thomson, Nicholas
AU - Tillem, Scott
AU - Vitacco, Michael
AU - Yoon, Dahlnym
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Psychological Association
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - DeMatteo et al. (2020b) published a Statement in this journal declaring that the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL–R) “cannot and should not [emphasis added]” (p. 134) be used in U.S. capital-sentencing cases to assess risk for serious institutional violence. Their stated concerns were the “imperfect interrater reliability” (p. 137), the “variability in their predictive validity” (p. 137), and the prejudicial effects of PCL-R ratings on the defendant. In a Cautionary Note, we (Olver et al., 2020) raised questions about the Statement’s evaluation of the PCL–R’s psychometric properties; presented new data, including a meta-analysis; and argued that the evidence did not support the Statement’s declaration that the PCL–R cannot be used in high-stakes contexts. In their reply, titled “Death is Different,” DeMatteo et al. (2020a) concurred with several points in our Cautionary Note, disputed others, asserted that we had misunderstood or mischaracterized their Statement, and dismissed our new data and comments as irrelevant to the Statement’s purpose. This perspective on our commentary is inimical to balanced academic discourse. In this article, we contend that DeMatteo et al. (2020a) underestimated the reliability and predictive validity of PCL–R ratings, overestimated the centrality of the PCL–R in sentencing decisions, and underplayed the importance of other factors. Most of their arguments depended on sources other than capital cases, including mock trials, sexually violent predator hearings, and studies that included the prediction of general violence. We conclude that the rationale for the bold “cannot and should not” decree is open to debate and in need of research in real-life venues.
AB - DeMatteo et al. (2020b) published a Statement in this journal declaring that the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL–R) “cannot and should not [emphasis added]” (p. 134) be used in U.S. capital-sentencing cases to assess risk for serious institutional violence. Their stated concerns were the “imperfect interrater reliability” (p. 137), the “variability in their predictive validity” (p. 137), and the prejudicial effects of PCL-R ratings on the defendant. In a Cautionary Note, we (Olver et al., 2020) raised questions about the Statement’s evaluation of the PCL–R’s psychometric properties; presented new data, including a meta-analysis; and argued that the evidence did not support the Statement’s declaration that the PCL–R cannot be used in high-stakes contexts. In their reply, titled “Death is Different,” DeMatteo et al. (2020a) concurred with several points in our Cautionary Note, disputed others, asserted that we had misunderstood or mischaracterized their Statement, and dismissed our new data and comments as irrelevant to the Statement’s purpose. This perspective on our commentary is inimical to balanced academic discourse. In this article, we contend that DeMatteo et al. (2020a) underestimated the reliability and predictive validity of PCL–R ratings, overestimated the centrality of the PCL–R in sentencing decisions, and underplayed the importance of other factors. Most of their arguments depended on sources other than capital cases, including mock trials, sexually violent predator hearings, and studies that included the prediction of general violence. We conclude that the rationale for the bold “cannot and should not” decree is open to debate and in need of research in real-life venues.
KW - Psychopathy Checklist—Revised
KW - capital sentencing
KW - field reliability
KW - institutional violence
KW - psychopathy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103578580&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85103578580&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/law0000290
DO - 10.1037/law0000290
M3 - Letter
AN - SCOPUS:85103578580
SN - 1076-8971
VL - 26
SP - 519
EP - 522
JO - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
JF - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
IS - 4
ER -