skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 135842 Find in a Library
Title: Profiling Child Sexual Abusers: Legal Considerations
Journal: Criminal Justice and Behavior  Volume:19  Issue:1  Dated:(March 1992)  Pages:38-53
Author(s): J M Peters; W D Murphy
Date Published: 1992
Page Count: 16
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This analysis of judicial decisions regarding the use of expert testimony regarding the psychological evaluation of child sexual abusers concludes that evidence regarding the supposed psychological profile of a child molester does not belong in the courtroom.
Abstract: Behavioral scientists have been presented as expert witnesses in many child sexual abuse cases to testify that known child molesters perform differently on psychological tests than persons who do not molest children. Such testimony has been offered in a wide range of cases, ranging form family courts to criminal courts, both for and against the accused person. For a variety of reasons, appellate courts across the country have almost universally rejected this type of evidence. California has been the notable exception, with the cases of People v. Stoll and People v. Ruiz supporting the use of psychological profiles. However, Murphy and Peters have revised the scientific literature and found that it does not support the type of opinion rendered by the experts in these cases. Psychological profile testimony is irrelevant to the determination of guilt or innocence, invades the province of the jury, and poses the risk of unfair prejudice. Therefore, California should reconsider its use. 35 references (Author abstract modified)
Main Term(s): Psychologists role in criminal justice; Sex offender profiles
Index Term(s): Child Sexual Abuse; Expert witnesses; Psychological evaluation
Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=135842

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.