Shawn Vestal
Spokesman-Review
Originally published January 25, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Jessen’s account was part of a series of documents recently released as part of a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU, which has filed a lawsuit against Jessen and his former business partner, James Mitchell. The interview represents the fullest public description of his role from Jessen, who lives in Spokane and operated a for-profit interrogation firm downtown staffed with former Fairchild Air Force Base officers. He has repeatedly denied interview requests from reporters.
The lawsuit against the two contractors is proceeding through federal court in Spokane. Rahman, through his family, is one of three named plaintiffs.
Jessen was interviewed as part of the CIA investigation into Rahman’s death at a “black site” known as the Salt Pit in Afghanistan in 2002. Rahman was a suspected Afghan militant and the CIA records refer to him as a member of al-Qaida.
In his interview, Jessen said his role varied from observer to hands-on interrogator, but makes clear he was closely involved. Another document says Jessen had six “sessions” with Rahman.
The article is here.
Monday, February 13, 2017
The "Bad Is Black" Effect: Why People Believe Evildoers Have Darker Skin Than Do-Gooders
Alter, A., Stern, C. Granot, Y., & Balcetis, E.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2016 Dec;42(12):1653-1665.
Abstract
Across six studies, people used a "bad is black" heuristic in social judgment and assumed that immoral acts were committed by people with darker skin tones, regardless of the racial background of those immoral actors. In archival studies of news articles written about Black and White celebrities in popular culture magazines (Study 1a) and American politicians (Study 1b), the more critical rather than complimentary the stories, the darker the skin tone of the photographs printed with the article. In the remaining four studies, participants associated immoral acts with darker skinned people when examining surveillance footage (Studies 2 and 4), and when matching headshots to good and bad actions (Studies 3 and 5). We additionally found that both race-based (Studies 2, 3, and 5) and shade-based (Studies 4 and 5) associations between badness and darkness determine whether people demonstrate the "bad is black" effect. We discuss implications for social perception and eyewitness identification.
The article is here.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2016 Dec;42(12):1653-1665.
Abstract
Across six studies, people used a "bad is black" heuristic in social judgment and assumed that immoral acts were committed by people with darker skin tones, regardless of the racial background of those immoral actors. In archival studies of news articles written about Black and White celebrities in popular culture magazines (Study 1a) and American politicians (Study 1b), the more critical rather than complimentary the stories, the darker the skin tone of the photographs printed with the article. In the remaining four studies, participants associated immoral acts with darker skinned people when examining surveillance footage (Studies 2 and 4), and when matching headshots to good and bad actions (Studies 3 and 5). We additionally found that both race-based (Studies 2, 3, and 5) and shade-based (Studies 4 and 5) associations between badness and darkness determine whether people demonstrate the "bad is black" effect. We discuss implications for social perception and eyewitness identification.
The article is here.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Expert Witness Testimony in Civil Commitment Hearings for Sexually Dangerous Individuals
Jennifer E. Alleyne, Kaustubh G. Joshi and Marie E. Gehle
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online June 2016, 44 (2) 265-267
Here is the Discussion Section:
Sexually dangerous individual (or sexually violent predator) laws across the country follow a general scheme. The individual has been convicted of certain sexual offenses and has a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him likely to commit similar crimes in the future. Whether decided by a judge or jury, the result is frequently the indefinite commitment of the person. Because the questions at hand are generally outside the expertise of the trier of fact, the testimony of qualified expert witnesses is crucial. Therefore, the admissibility and credibility of mental health testimony are often heavily scrutinized during the proceedings.
Mr. Loy sought to find Dr. Sullivan's and Dr. Volk's testimonies inadmissible on different grounds. Having a license on probation, giving testimony that creates an alleged bias, or, for example, routinely testifying for one side versus the other does not automatically render the witness unqualified or the testimony inadmissible. In most jurisdictions, the case law and statutes governing the admission of expert witness testimony allow for its use if the witness has some degree of expertise in the field in which he will testify and if the testimony helps the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact at issue.
Inherent in the civil commitment of sexual offenders are complex concerns regarding psychiatric diagnoses, risk assessment, and volitional impairment. The trier of fact depends on expert testimony to understand and decide these questions. If the expert has a skeleton in the closet, has an imperfection in his qualifications, or holds an alleged bias, the trier of fact should appropriately weigh the credibility of that testimony when rendering a decision. Such testimony is not automatically inadmissible. A court's discretion in admitting expert witness testimony will not be reversed unless the district court abuses its discretion in admitting expert testimony. Finally, in most jurisdictions, the court's assessment of witness credibility is granted deference.
The article is here.
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online June 2016, 44 (2) 265-267
Here is the Discussion Section:
Sexually dangerous individual (or sexually violent predator) laws across the country follow a general scheme. The individual has been convicted of certain sexual offenses and has a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him likely to commit similar crimes in the future. Whether decided by a judge or jury, the result is frequently the indefinite commitment of the person. Because the questions at hand are generally outside the expertise of the trier of fact, the testimony of qualified expert witnesses is crucial. Therefore, the admissibility and credibility of mental health testimony are often heavily scrutinized during the proceedings.
Mr. Loy sought to find Dr. Sullivan's and Dr. Volk's testimonies inadmissible on different grounds. Having a license on probation, giving testimony that creates an alleged bias, or, for example, routinely testifying for one side versus the other does not automatically render the witness unqualified or the testimony inadmissible. In most jurisdictions, the case law and statutes governing the admission of expert witness testimony allow for its use if the witness has some degree of expertise in the field in which he will testify and if the testimony helps the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact at issue.
Inherent in the civil commitment of sexual offenders are complex concerns regarding psychiatric diagnoses, risk assessment, and volitional impairment. The trier of fact depends on expert testimony to understand and decide these questions. If the expert has a skeleton in the closet, has an imperfection in his qualifications, or holds an alleged bias, the trier of fact should appropriately weigh the credibility of that testimony when rendering a decision. Such testimony is not automatically inadmissible. A court's discretion in admitting expert witness testimony will not be reversed unless the district court abuses its discretion in admitting expert testimony. Finally, in most jurisdictions, the court's assessment of witness credibility is granted deference.
The article is here.
Saturday, February 11, 2017
A Tale of Two Moralities, Part 1
Will Wilkinson
Niskanen Center
Originally posted January 19, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Because “the establishment” (including the Republican political establishment) is relatively cosmopolitan and liberal (in the broad sense), an outpouring of populist anti-establishment sentiment is going to assume a nationalistic, illiberal form more or less by default. The good news is that anti-elite anybody-but-Hillary-ism doesn’t really imply serious public appetite for anything like alt-right authoritarianism. The bad news is that the liberal-democratic capitalist welfare state and the so-called “neoliberal” global order is far and away the best humanity has ever done, and we’ve taken it for granted. We could very well trash it in a fit of pique, and wind up a middle-income kleptocracy boiling with civil strife and/or destabilize the global order in a way that ends in utter horror.
It is very important to keep this from happening! And that means it’s important to understand the mechanisms underlying our cultural and moral polarization. That’s what I’m going to begin to do in this (long!) post, in a preliminary, speculative, exploratory spirit. I want to push a little deeper than the prevailing journalistic narratives have gone, and churn up some credible empirical hypotheses that I hope will help us eventually home in on the correct diagnosis. Then we can hazard some recommendations that may help reduce polarization and mitigate its bad effects. I’ll do that in a future post.
This important blog post is here.
Niskanen Center
Originally posted January 19, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Because “the establishment” (including the Republican political establishment) is relatively cosmopolitan and liberal (in the broad sense), an outpouring of populist anti-establishment sentiment is going to assume a nationalistic, illiberal form more or less by default. The good news is that anti-elite anybody-but-Hillary-ism doesn’t really imply serious public appetite for anything like alt-right authoritarianism. The bad news is that the liberal-democratic capitalist welfare state and the so-called “neoliberal” global order is far and away the best humanity has ever done, and we’ve taken it for granted. We could very well trash it in a fit of pique, and wind up a middle-income kleptocracy boiling with civil strife and/or destabilize the global order in a way that ends in utter horror.
It is very important to keep this from happening! And that means it’s important to understand the mechanisms underlying our cultural and moral polarization. That’s what I’m going to begin to do in this (long!) post, in a preliminary, speculative, exploratory spirit. I want to push a little deeper than the prevailing journalistic narratives have gone, and churn up some credible empirical hypotheses that I hope will help us eventually home in on the correct diagnosis. Then we can hazard some recommendations that may help reduce polarization and mitigate its bad effects. I’ll do that in a future post.
This important blog post is here.
Friday, February 10, 2017
Government Ethics Office Website Crashes Under Too Much Traffic — Again
Alina Selyukh
The Two-Way - Breaking News from NPR
Originally posted February 9, 2017
The Office of Government Ethics is back in the news as its website crashed, for the second time in less than a month, again under a flood of inquiries.
The advisory agency typically works to vet people who run the country and detangle them from financial ties that may influence their work in public office. And typically, this work happens quietly in the background when administrations transition from one president to another.
But the OGE has received an extraordinary amount of spotlight as Donald Trump has become president. OGE chief has been one of the loudest critics of Trump's decision to remain the owner of his worldwide business empire, with its vast web of financial interests.
On Thursday, the OGE's website was overwhelmed by a surge of clicks.
"OGE's website, phone system and email system are receiving an extraordinary volume of contacts from citizens about recent events," the agency said on Twitter.
Dysfunction Disorder
Joaquin Sapien
Pro Publica
Originally published on January 17, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
The mental health professionals in both cases had been recruited by Montego Medical Consulting, a for-profit company under contract with New York City's child welfare agency. For more than a decade, Montego was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by the city to produce thousands of evaluations in Family Court cases -- of mothers and fathers, spouses and children. Those evaluations were then shared with judges making decisions of enormous sensitivity and consequence: whether a child could stay at home or if they'd be safer in foster care; whether a parent should be enrolled in a counseling program or put on medication; whether parents should lose custody of their children altogether.
In 2012, a confidential review done at the behest of frustrated lawyers and delivered to the administrative judge of Family Court in New York City concluded that the work of the psychologists lined up by Montego was inadequate in nearly every way. The analysis matched roughly 25 Montego evaluations against 20 criteria from the American Psychological Association and other professional guidelines. None of the Montego reports met all 20 criteria. Some met as few as five. The psychologists used by Montego often didn't actually observe parents interacting with children. They used outdated or inappropriate tools for psychological assessments, including one known as a "projective drawing" exercise.
(cut)
Attorneys and psychologists who have worked in Family Court say judges lean heavily on assessments made by psychologists, often referred to as "forensic evaluators." So do judges themselves.
"In many instances, judges rely on forensic evaluators more than perhaps they should," said Jody Adams, who served as a Family Court judge in New York City for nearly 20 years before leaving the bench in 2012. "They should have more confidence in their own insight and judgment. A forensic evaluator's evidence should be a piece of the judge's decision, but not determinative. These are unbelievably difficult decisions; these are not black and white; they are filled with gray areas and they have lifelong consequences for children and their families. So it's human nature to want to look for help where you can get it."
The article is here.
Pro Publica
Originally published on January 17, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
The mental health professionals in both cases had been recruited by Montego Medical Consulting, a for-profit company under contract with New York City's child welfare agency. For more than a decade, Montego was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by the city to produce thousands of evaluations in Family Court cases -- of mothers and fathers, spouses and children. Those evaluations were then shared with judges making decisions of enormous sensitivity and consequence: whether a child could stay at home or if they'd be safer in foster care; whether a parent should be enrolled in a counseling program or put on medication; whether parents should lose custody of their children altogether.
In 2012, a confidential review done at the behest of frustrated lawyers and delivered to the administrative judge of Family Court in New York City concluded that the work of the psychologists lined up by Montego was inadequate in nearly every way. The analysis matched roughly 25 Montego evaluations against 20 criteria from the American Psychological Association and other professional guidelines. None of the Montego reports met all 20 criteria. Some met as few as five. The psychologists used by Montego often didn't actually observe parents interacting with children. They used outdated or inappropriate tools for psychological assessments, including one known as a "projective drawing" exercise.
(cut)
Attorneys and psychologists who have worked in Family Court say judges lean heavily on assessments made by psychologists, often referred to as "forensic evaluators." So do judges themselves.
"In many instances, judges rely on forensic evaluators more than perhaps they should," said Jody Adams, who served as a Family Court judge in New York City for nearly 20 years before leaving the bench in 2012. "They should have more confidence in their own insight and judgment. A forensic evaluator's evidence should be a piece of the judge's decision, but not determinative. These are unbelievably difficult decisions; these are not black and white; they are filled with gray areas and they have lifelong consequences for children and their families. So it's human nature to want to look for help where you can get it."
The article is here.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
The Trolley Problem: Video Teaching Tool
The trolley problem explained simply in this video, in case you teach ethics or moral psychology.
The Trolley Problem from Eoin Duffy on Vimeo.
The Trolley Problem from Eoin Duffy on Vimeo.
Financial ties between researchers and drug industry linked to positive trial results
British Medical Journal
Press Release
Originally released January 17, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
More than half (58%) of principal investigators had financial ties to the drug industry - including travel expenses, honorariums, payment for advisory work, or stock ownership.
The results show that trials authored by principal investigators with financial ties to drug manufacturers were more likely than other trials to report favourable results.
Even after accounting for factors that may have affected the results, such as funding source and sample size, financial ties were still significantly associated with positive study outcomes.
The authors point to possible mechanisms linking industry funding, financial ties, and trial results such as bias by selective outcome reporting, lack of publication, and inappropriate analyses.
The pressor is here.
Press Release
Originally released January 17, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
More than half (58%) of principal investigators had financial ties to the drug industry - including travel expenses, honorariums, payment for advisory work, or stock ownership.
The results show that trials authored by principal investigators with financial ties to drug manufacturers were more likely than other trials to report favourable results.
Even after accounting for factors that may have affected the results, such as funding source and sample size, financial ties were still significantly associated with positive study outcomes.
The authors point to possible mechanisms linking industry funding, financial ties, and trial results such as bias by selective outcome reporting, lack of publication, and inappropriate analyses.
The pressor is here.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Medical culture encourages doctors to avoid admitting mistakes
By Lawrence Schlachter
STAT News
Originally published on January 13, 2017
Here are two excerpts:
In reality, the factor that most influences doctors to hide or disclose medical errors should be clear to anyone who has spent much time in the profession: The culture of medicine frowns on admitting mistakes, usually on the pretense of fear of malpractice lawsuits.
But what’s really at risk are doctors’ egos and the preservation of a system that lets physicians avoid accountability by ignoring problems or shifting blame to “the system” or any culprit other than themselves.
(cut)
What is a patient to do in this environment? The first thing is to be aware of your own predisposition to take everything your doctor says at face value. Listen closely and you may hear cause for more intense questioning.
You will likely never hear the terms negligence, error, mistake, or injury in a hospital. Instead, these harsh but truthful words and phrases are replaced with softer ones like accident, adverse event, or unfortunate outcome. If you hear any of these euphemisms, ask more questions or seek another opinion from a different doctor, preferably at a different facility.
Most doctors would never tell a flagrant lie. But in my experience as a neurosurgeon and as an attorney, too many of them resort to half-truths and glaring omissions when it comes to errors. Beware of passive language like “the patient experienced bleeding” rather than “I made a bad cut”; attributing an error to random chance or a nameless, faceless system; or trivialization of the consequences of the error by claiming something was “a blessing in disguise.”
The article is here.
STAT News
Originally published on January 13, 2017
Here are two excerpts:
In reality, the factor that most influences doctors to hide or disclose medical errors should be clear to anyone who has spent much time in the profession: The culture of medicine frowns on admitting mistakes, usually on the pretense of fear of malpractice lawsuits.
But what’s really at risk are doctors’ egos and the preservation of a system that lets physicians avoid accountability by ignoring problems or shifting blame to “the system” or any culprit other than themselves.
(cut)
What is a patient to do in this environment? The first thing is to be aware of your own predisposition to take everything your doctor says at face value. Listen closely and you may hear cause for more intense questioning.
You will likely never hear the terms negligence, error, mistake, or injury in a hospital. Instead, these harsh but truthful words and phrases are replaced with softer ones like accident, adverse event, or unfortunate outcome. If you hear any of these euphemisms, ask more questions or seek another opinion from a different doctor, preferably at a different facility.
Most doctors would never tell a flagrant lie. But in my experience as a neurosurgeon and as an attorney, too many of them resort to half-truths and glaring omissions when it comes to errors. Beware of passive language like “the patient experienced bleeding” rather than “I made a bad cut”; attributing an error to random chance or a nameless, faceless system; or trivialization of the consequences of the error by claiming something was “a blessing in disguise.”
The article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)