As a result, controversy exists in the medical community regarding the ethical and legal implications of clinicians' expert testimony. In a recent article in Science magazine, Faust and Ziskin contended that clinicians fall far short of the legal standard for medical expertise. Similarly, research has shown that a clinician's prediction that someone will act violently is twice as likely to be wrong as it is to be right. Nevertheless, predictions are a routine part of legal proceedings from parole and bail hearings to civil commitment and sentencing proceedings. Of the 37 States that allow the death penalty, 8 jurisdictions consider, during sentencing, a defendant's likelihood of being a continuing threat to society. In addition, defense attorneys say that the testimony is almost impossible to counteract. However, moderates argue that predictions of dangerousness have a limited place in the justice system, particularly for short-term civil commitments. Discussion of the case of Satterwhite v. Texas, summary of the liability of mental health professionals regarding warning potential victims, and 12 reference notes.