Evaluating science outside the trial box: applying Daubert to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines' criminal history score.
A limited amount of research exists examining the ability of the Criminal History Score of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) to achieve one of its most essential objectives: prediction of recidivism. Building on the work of Schopp [Schopp, R. (2001). Competency, condemnation, and commitment: An integrated theory of mental health law. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association], it is suggested that the scientific admissibility framework and the underlying principles announced by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical [Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 507 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993)] should be expanded beyond the constraints of the evidentiary admissibility phase of trial and should apply to legislative and administrative rules that have: a) an empirically testable purpose and b) a substantial impact on the rights of individuals. Such an analysis offers a useful mechanism for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of social science being used by legal institutions. Based upon a hypothetical Daubert analysis, the scientific validity of the Guidelines' Criminal History Score is assessed and demonstrated to be insufficient. The law and policy implications of this finding are discussed.
Krauss
Daniel A
DA
Department of Psychology, Claremont McKenna College, CA, USA. drkrauss@mckenna.edu
D003415:Crime / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D003417:Criminal Psychology / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006801:Humans; D007603:Jurisprudence; D011329:Prisoners / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D012008:Recurrence; D014481:United States