Gun violence among young adults with a juvenile crime record in North Carolina: Implications for firearm restrictions based on age and risk.

Youth who acquire a juvenile crime record may be at increased risk of perpetrating gun violence as adults. North Carolina and 22 other states permit young adults who were adjudicated by a juvenile court - even for some felony-equivalent offenses - to legally access firearms. Effectiveness of gun restrictions for adults with juvenile crime histories has not been systematically studied. This article reports findings from a longitudinal study of arrests and convictions for gun-involved and other offenses in 51,059 young adults in North Carolina, comparing those with gun-disqualifying and not-disqualifying juvenile records. The annualized rate of arrest for gun-involved crime in those with a felony-level juvenile record was 9 times higher than the rate of reported comparable offenses in the same age group in the North Carolina general population (3349 vs. 376 per 100,000). Among those with a felony-equivalent juvenile delinquency adjudication who became legally eligible to possess firearms at age 18, 61.8% were later arrested for any criminal offense, 14.3% for a firearm-involved offense. Crimes with guns were most likely to occur among young adults who had committed more serious (felony or equivalent) offenses before age 18; had been adjudicated at younger ages; acquired a felony conviction as a youth; and spent time in prison. The prevalence of arrests for crimes involving guns among young adults in North Carolina with a gun-disqualifying felony record acquired before age 18 suggests that the federal gun prohibitor conferred by a felony record is not highly effective as currently implemented in this population. From a risk-based perspective, these restrictions appear to be justified; better implementation and enforcement may improve their effectiveness. Gun crime prevention policies and interventions should focus on these populations and on limiting illegal access to firearms.

Competency to stand trial evaluations: A state-wide review of court-ordered reports.

Competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations are a critical part of certain criminal proceedings, and competence-related evaluation and treatment are an increasing part of public mental health services. Whereas more research describes the defendants undergoing competence evaluations, less research has examined the actual reports detailing those competence evaluations. This study reviewed 3,644 court-ordered CST evaluation reports submitted by 126 evaluators in Virginia since Virginia initiated an oversight system allowing for comprehensive review. The base rate of incompetence opinions was 38.8%, but these rates varied significantly across evaluation type (initial versus post-restoration efforts) and evaluators (ranging from 9.1% to 76.8% incompetence rate). Results suggest generally strong compliance with state statutes guiding CST evaluations, but also highlight marked variability in forensic conclusions and reveal a few areas in which some reports fell short of statutory requirements and practice guidelines.

The impact of misdemeanor arrests on forensic mental health services: A state-wide review of Virginia sanity evaluations.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the prevalence of criminal defendants facing only misdemeanor charges and referred for forensic mental health evaluations of legal sanity (criminal responsibility) in a state-wide sample of sanity reports. We sought to describe this population of defendants, particularly as compared to defendants facing felony charges and referred for evaluation of legal sanity. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that, among those referred for sanity evaluations, defendants facing only misdemeanor charges would have higher rates of serious mental illness than would defendants charged with felonies, as evidenced by their mental status during the evaluation and at the time of alleged offenses. We also hypothesized that defendants charged with only misdemeanors would be more often opined insane, as compared to those charged with felonies. METHOD: We reviewed a statewide sample of 926 court-ordered sanity evaluation reports in Virginia and coded numerous variables describing the defendants, sanity evaluation process, resulting reports, and legal opinions offered within the reports. RESULTS: Approximately 22.3% of sanity evaluations involved defendants charged only with misdemeanor offenses. Defendants facing only misdemeanor charges were 1.82 times more likely to be opined insane than were defendants facing only felony charges, primarily due to their increased likelihood of experiencing psychotic symptoms at the time of the offense (1.83 times more likely than defendants facing felony charges). CONCLUSIONS: The merits of pursuing the insanity defense in response to misdemeanor charges are questionable given the cost- and resource-intensive outcomes associated with insanity acquittals. Diversion strategies may be a more efficient response to those defendants with serious mental illness facing only misdemeanor charges. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Neuropsychological correlates of self-reported impulsivity and informant-reported maladaptive behaviour among veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury history.

OBJECTIVE: Frontal lobe deficits resulting from traumatic brain injury (TBI) and/or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been linked to impulsive behaviour. We sought to examine whether neuropsychological performance predicted self-reported impulsivity and informant-reported maladaptive behaviour. METHOD: We administered the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS) to 116 Iraq/Afghanistan-era veterans diagnosed with a history of TBI and PTSD. RESULTS: Poorer performance on D-KEFS Stroop Task (both colour and word, separately) and Trail making (letter sequencing and motor speed) tasks and higher PTSD symptom severity were associated with higher self-reported impulsivity. Trail making letter sequencing performance was negatively associated with informant-reported maladaptive behaviour. Regression analyses revealed PTSD symptom severity and Trail making letter sequencing best predicted self-reported impulsivity, even when accounting for age, sex, and education. Only Trail making letter sequencing predicted informant-reported maladaptive behaviour when accounting for other variables in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Attention and processing speed impairments and PTSD symptom severity appear to be important predictors of impulsivity and problematic behaviour among veterans. Findings have implications for theoretical models of aggression and violence and inform the assessment and treatment of individuals with TBI and PTSD.

Does the Convergent Validity of the PAI Antisocial Features Scale Depend on Offender Response Style?

Researchers have recently questioned the utility of the response style indicators included on many self-report measures of personality and psychopathology. We examined whether the size of convergent validity coefficients for Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) Antisocial Features (ANT) scores depends on PAI validity scale scores. Using PAI and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) scores from 477 offenders evaluated for civil commitment as sexually violent predators, we found that PAI Positive Impression (PIM), Negative Impression (NIM), Malingering Index (MAL), Defensiveness Index (DEF), and Infrequency (INF) scores moderated the association between ANT and PCL-R scores. The association between ANT and PCL-R scores decreased as offenders overstated psychopathology (i.e., higher NIM or MAL scores) or exhibited increasing disengagement (i.e., higher INF scores). However, the association between ANT and PCL-R scores increased as offenders engaged in defensive reporting (i.e., higher PIM or DEF scores). The interaction effects were most common for ANT-E (Egocentricity), and to a lesser extent ANT-A (Antisocial Behaviors). PAI discriminant function validity indexes did not exhibit moderating effects on ANT and PCL-R scores. There was no evidence of validity scale suppression effects. These findings provide support for the potential role of some PAI response style measures for ANT scale interpretation in forensic settings.

A Validation Study of the Need for Affect Questionnaire-Short Form in Legal Contexts.

We evaluated the psychometric properties of scores on the Need for Affect-Short Form (NAQ-S) in 3 samples: undergraduate students (Sample I), jury-eligible community members (Sample II), and forensic clinicians (Sample III). Concerning factor structure, the NAQ-S 2-factor structure displayed good fit to the data in Sample I, with mostly acceptable levels of internal consistency for both approach and avoidance scores. Construct validity patterns were observed such that approach scores were most strongly correlated with female gender and trait agreeableness scores, whereas avoidance scores were most strongly correlated to trait agreeableness scores. Criterion validity associations emerged in that approach scores displayed main effects on mock juror judgments in hate crimes, and forensic clinician judgments of violence risk estimation. Finally, avoidance scores displayed moderating effects on recommended sentencing length by hate crime victim type. Implications are discussed for emotion in legal decision making and future research.

Can preferences in information processing aid in understanding suicide risk among emerging adults?

The present study evaluated emerging adult (n = 192 college students) preferences in information processing (PIP), defined by the need for affect (NFA) and need for cognition (NFC), as they may be associated with suicide risk. The following were direct indicators of elevated suicide risk: presence of lifetime exposure to suicide (i.e., lifetime yes/no), elevated depressive symptoms, and greater NFA avoidance. Two different interactions resulted in elevated suicide risk: high depressive symptoms and high NFA avoidance, and high NFC and high NFA. Present results concerning PIP hold the potential to inform suicide risk assessment and prevention efforts among young adults.

Evaluator differences in Psychopathy Checklist-Revised factor and facet scores.

Recent research suggests that the reliability of some measures used in forensic assessments--such as Hare's (2003) Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)--tends to be weaker when applied in the field, as compared with formal research studies. Specifically, some of the score variability in the field is attributable to evaluators themselves, rather than the offenders they evaluate. We studied evaluator differences in PCL-R scoring among 558 offenders (14 evaluators) and found evidence of large evaluator differences in scoring for each PCL-R factor and facet, even after controlling for offenders' self-reported antisocial traits. There was less evidence of evaluator differences when we limited analyses to the 11 evaluators who reported having completed a PCL-R training workshop. Findings provide indirect but positive support for the benefits of PCL-R training, but also suggest that evaluator differences may be evident to some extent in many field settings, even among trained evaluators.

Perceptions of blind proficiency testing among latent print examiners.

In recent years, scholars have levied multiple criticisms against traditional proficiency testing procedures in forensic laboratories. Consequently, on several occasions, authorities have formally recommended that laboratories implement blind proficiency testing procedures. Implementation has been slow, but laboratory management has increasingly expressed interest in initiating blind testing in at least some forensic disciplines, with some laboratories conducting blind testing in almost all disciplines. However, little is known about how a key population perceives blind proficiency testing, i.e., forensic examiners. We surveyed active latent print examiners (N = 338) to explore perceptions of blind proficiency testing and determine whether beliefs varied between examiners who work for laboratories with and without blind proficiency testing. Results suggest that examiners do not hold particularly strong beliefs about such procedures, but that examiners who work in laboratories with blind proficiency testing procedures view them significantly more positively than those who do not. Further, examiner responses provide insight into potential obstacles to continued implementation.

What types of information can and do latent print examiners review? A survey of practicing examiners.

Understanding typical work practices is important to understanding the decision-making process underlying latent print comparison and improving the reliability of the discipline. Despite efforts to standardize work practices, a growing literature has demonstrated that contextual effects can influence every aspect of the analytic process. However, very little is known about what types of information are available to latent print examiners, and what types of information latent print examiners routinely review. We surveyed practicing latent print examiners (N = 284) regarding what types of information are accessible during routine casework, and what types of information they routinely review during casework. We also explored whether access and inclination to review different types of information vary according to unit size and examiner role. Results indicated that information describing the physical evidence is accessible by almost all examiners (94.4%), and most examiners have access to offense type (90.5%), method of evidence collection (77.8%), and the names of both suspect (76.1%) and victim (73.9%). However, evidence description (86.3%) and method of evidence collection (68.3%) were the only information types consistently reviewed by most examiners. Findings also indicate that examiners in smaller laboratories have access to more information types and often review more information types than examiners from larger laboratories, but both populations choose to not review information at similar rates. Further, examiners in supervisory positions are more likely to choose to not review information than examiners in non-supervisory positions. Although there is some consensus regarding what types of information examiners routinely review, findings suggest that there is little absolute consensus regarding what information examiners can even access, and highlight two sources of variability in examiner work practices: employment setting and examiner role. This is concerning in light of efforts to maximize the reliability of analytic procedures (and ultimately, conclusions) and represents an important area of future study as the field progresses.

Does image editing improve the quality of latent prints? An analysis of image-editing techniques in one crime laboratory.

Field research within latent print comparison has remained sparse in the context of an otherwise growing body of literature examining the discipline. Studies examining how ACE-V procedures are implemented within active crime laboratories are especially lacking in light of research suggesting significant variability in examiner practices despite standardized ACE-V procedures. To date, no studies have examined a potentially important aspect of the Analysis phase: digital image editing. We provide information on the prevalence and types of latent print image editing within one laboratory (i.e., Houston Forensic Science Center), examine the potential effect of image editing on objective print quality and clarity (i.e., LQMetrics scores), and explore potential examiner differences in editing effectiveness. Results indicate that most latent prints are edited in some manner, and that image editing improves the quality and clarity of print images as defined by an objective quality metric, although examiners varied in their ability to improve the clarity of print images. Findings suggest that formal guidance or documentation of standard editing procedures would likely improve the reliability of examiner conclusions early in the latent print comparison process.

Latent print quality in blind proficiency testing: Using quality metrics to examine laboratory performance.

Calls for blind proficiency testing in forensic science disciplines intensified following the 2009 National Academy of Sciences report and were echoed in the 2016 report by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Both practitioners and scholars have noted that "open" proficiency tests, in which analysts know they are being tested, allow for test-taking behavior that is not representative of behavior in routine casework. This study reports the outcomes of one laboratory's blind quality control (BQC) program. Specifically, we describe results from approximately 2.5 years of blind cases in the latent print section (N = 376 latent prints submitted as part of 144 cases). We also used a widely available quality metrics software (LQMetrics) to explore relationships between objective print quality and case outcomes. Results revealed that nearly all BQC prints (92.0%) were of sufficient quality to enter into AFIS. When prints had a source present in AFIS, 41.7% of print searches resulted in a candidate list containing the true source. Examiners committed no false positive errors but other types of errors were more common. Average print quality was in the midpoint of the range (53.4 on a 0-to-100 scale), though prints were evenly distributed across the Good, Bad, and Ugly categories. Quality metrics were significantly associated with sufficiency determinations, examiner conclusions, and examiner accuracy. Implications for blind testing and the use of quality metrics in routine casework as well as proficiency testing are discussed.

Latent print comparison and examiner conclusions: A field analysis of case processing in one crime laboratory.

Scholarship on the latent print comparison process has expanded in recent years, responsive to the call for rigorous research by scholarly groups (e.g., National Academy of Sciences, 2009; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2016). Important to the task of ultimately improving accuracy, consistency, and efficiency in the field is understanding different workflows and case outcomes. The current study describes the casework completed by a latent print unit in a large laboratory during one calendar year (2018), including a unique workflow that involves Preliminary AFIS Associations reported out as investigative leads. Approximately 45% of all examined prints were deemed to be of sufficient quality to enter into AFIS, and 22% of AFIS entries resulted in potential identifications. But examiner conclusions and AFIS outcomes (across three AFIS databases) varied according to case details, print source, and AFIS database. Moreover, examiners differed in case processing, sufficiency determinations, and AFIS conclusions. Results are discussed with respect to implications for future research (e.g., comparing these data to case processing data for other laboratories) and ultimately improving the practice of latent print examination.

Judges and forensic science education: A national survey.

In criminal cases, forensic science reports and expert testimony play an increasingly important role in adjudication. More states now follow a federal reliability standard, which calls upon judges to assess the reliability and validity of scientific evidence. Little is known about how judges view their own background in forensic scientific evidence, and what types of specialized training they receive on it. In this study, we surveyed 164 judges from 39 different U.S. states, who attended past trainings at the National Judicial College. We asked these judges about their background in forensic science, their views concerning the reliability of common forensic disciplines, and their needs to better evaluate forensic science evidence. We discovered that judges held views regarding the scientific support for different forensic science disciplines that were fairly consistent with available literature; their error rate estimates were more supported by research than many estimates by laypersons, who often assume forensic methods are nearly infallible. We did not find any association between how judges rate forensic reliability and prior training. We did, however, find that training corresponded with judges' views that they should, and do in fact, take on a more active gatekeeping role regarding forensics. Regarding the tools judges need to vet forensic experts and properly evaluate forensic science evidence, they reported having very different backgrounds in relevant scientific concepts and having forensic science education needs. Judges reported needs in accessing better material concerning reliability of forensic science methods. These results support new efforts to expand scientific evidence education in the judiciary.

Latent Print Proficiency Testing: An Examination of Test Respondents, Test-Taking Procedures, and Test Characteristics.

Proficiency testing is a key component of quality assurance programs within crime laboratories and can help improve laboratory practices. However, current proficiency testing procedures contain significant limitations and can be misinterpreted by examiners and court personnel (Garrett & Mitchell, 2018). To evaluate some of these limitations, we surveyed latent print examiners (n = 198) after they completed a Collaborative Testing Services, Inc. proficiency test. Additionally, we evaluated test performance and used a quality metric algorithm to evaluate the quality of test prints. Results do not suggest that respondents are dissimilar to the broader examiner population, although they may engage in different behaviors when completing tests versus casework. Findings show that proficiency testing contains prints of high quality and is perceived as both relatively easy and representative of casework. The test discriminated between inexperienced and experienced respondents, and verification procedures were largely ineffective in reducing errors. Objective quality metrics may provide a path forward to improving proficiency testing in a measurable manner.

How do latent print examiners perceive proficiency testing? An analysis of examiner perceptions, performance, and print quality.

Proficiency testing has the potential to serve several important purposes for crime laboratories and forensic science disciplines. Scholars and other stakeholders, however, have criticized standard proficiency testing procedures since their implementation in laboratories across the United States. Specifically, many experts label current proficiency tests as non-representative of actual casework, at least in part because they are not sufficiently challenging (e.g., [1-4]. In the current study, we surveyed latent print examiners (n = 322) after they completed a Collaborative Testing Services proficiency test about their perceptions of test items. We also evaluated respondents' test performance and used a quality metric algorithm (LQMetrics) to obtain objective indicators of print quality on the test. Results were generally consistent with experts' concerns about proficiency testing. The low observed error rate, examiner perceptions of relative ease, and high objective print quality metrics together suggest that latent print proficiency testing is not especially challenging. Further, examiners indicated that the test items that most closely resembled real-world casework were also the most difficult and contained prints of the lowest quality. Study findings suggest that including prints of lower quality may increase both the difficulty and representativeness of proficiency testing in latent print examination.

What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?

In response to research demonstrating that irrelevant contextual information can bias forensic science analyses, authorities have increasingly urged laboratories to limit analysts' access to irrelevant and potentially biasing information (Dror and Cole (2010) [3]; National Academy of Sciences (2009) [18]; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2016) [22]; UK Forensic Science Regulator (2015) [26]). However, a great challenge in implementing this reform is determining which information is task-relevant and which is task-irrelevant. In the current study, we surveyed 183 forensic analysts to examine what they consider relevant versus irrelevant in their forensic analyses. Results revealed that analysts generally do not regard information regarding the suspect or victim as essential to their analytic tasks. However, there was significant variability among analysts within and between disciplines. Findings suggest that forensic science disciplines need to agree on what they regard as task-relevant before context management procedures can be properly implemented. The lack of consensus about what is relevant information not only leaves room for biasing information, but also reveals foundational gaps in what analysts consider crucial in forensic decision making.

Perceptions and estimates of error rates in forensic science: A survey of forensic analysts.

Every scientific technique features some error, and legal standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence (e.g., Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1993; Kumho Tire Co v. Carmichael, 1999) guide trial courts to consider known error rates. However, recent reviews of forensic science conclude that error rates for some common techniques are not well-documented or even established (e.g., NAS, 2009; PCAST, 2016). Furthermore, many forensic analysts have historically denied the presence of error in their field. Therefore, it is important to establish what forensic scientists actually know or believe about errors rates in their disciplines. We surveyed 183 practicing forensic analysts to examine what they think and estimate about error rates in their various disciplines. Results revealed that analysts perceive all types of errors to be rare, with false positive errors even more rare than false negatives. Likewise, analysts typically reported that they prefer to minimize the risk of false positives over false negatives. Most analysts could not specify where error rates for their discipline were documented or published. Their estimates of error in their fields were widely divergent - with some estimates unrealistically low.

Do evidence submission forms expose latent print examiners to task-irrelevant information?

Emerging research documents the ways in which task-irrelevant contextual information may influence the opinions and decisions that forensic analysts reach regarding evidence (e.g., Dror and Cole, 2010; National Academy of Sciences, 2009; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2016). Consequently, authorities have called for forensic analysts to rely solely on task-relevant information-and to actively avoid task-irrelevant information-when conducting analyses (National Commission on Forensic Science, 2015). In this study, we examined 97 evidence submission forms, used by 148 accredited crime laboratories across the United States, to determine what types of information laboratories solicit when performing latent print analyses. Results indicate that many laboratories request information with no direct relevance to the specific task of latent print comparison. More concerning, approximately one in six forms (16.5%) request information that appears to have a high potential for bias without any discernible relevance to latent print comparison. Solicitations for task-irrelevant information may carry meaningful consequences and current findings inform strategies to reduce the potential for cognitive bias.

Personality Assessment Inventory scores as predictors of misconduct, recidivism, and violence: A meta-analytic review.

More than 30 studies have examined the ability of scores on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991, 2007) to predict violence or misconduct. The Antisocial Features (ANT), Aggression (AGG), and Violence Potential Index (VPI) Scales of the PAI, in particular, have received substantial attention as predictors of institutional infractions and criminal recidivism. The current study used meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive review of the ability of scores on these and other PAI scales to predict misbehavior. Scores on the ANT (d = .26 to .39) and AGG (d = .23 to .40) scales consistently emerged as small to moderate predictors of misbehavior. Effects tended to be larger in correctional than treatment settings (e.g., ANT d = .44 vs. .20), for institutional misconduct than recidivism (e.g., AGG d = .37 vs. .23), and for institutional misconduct studies with follow up periods of at least 1.5 years (e.g., ANT d = .46). Overall, findings provide support for the predictive validity of multiple PAI scales.