Citation

Peters JM, Murphy WD. Crim. Justice Behav. 1992; 19(1): 38-53.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1992, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0093854892019001005

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Behavioral scientists have been presented as expert witnesses in 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 from family court to the criminal arena, both for and against the accused. For a variety of reasons, appellate courts across the country have almost universally rejected this type of evidence, the notable exception being California. This article summarizes the case law on both sides of the issue and concludes that evidence regarding the supposed psychological profile of a child molester has no place in the courtroom. This article provides a brief summary of legal thought regarding the general admissibility of scientific evidence and then reviews published cases organized by the major legal underpinnings of each case. The analysis in this article is limited to laws within the United States and may not apply to other countries.

Language: en