The effect of the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised in capital cases: mock jurors' responses to the label of psychopathy.

Despite mixed empirical evidence regarding the ability of the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R) to predict violence among incarcerated inmates, it continues to be used to address such questions, even in the context of capital cases. The purpose of this study was to examine if the PCL-R has a prejudicial effect on mock jury members during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial. Results indicated that participants were more likely to sentence the defendant to death when the defendant exhibited a high likelihood to commit future violence, whether or not the diagnostic label "psychopath" was present. Interestingly, when asked to rate the defendant's likelihood for future violence and murder, the defendant who was a high risk for future violence and not labeled a psychopath received the highest rating. These results suggest an absence of juror bias as it pertains to the label "psychopath" when sentencing a defendant in a capital murder case.

Do research payments precipitate drug use or coerce participation?

Providing high-magnitude cash incentives to substance abuse clients to participate in research is frequently viewed as unethical based on the concerns that this might precipitate new drug use or be perceived as coercive. We randomly assigned consenting drug abuse outpatients to receive payments of 10 US dollars, 40 US dollars, or 70 US dollars in either cash or gift certificate for attending a 6-month research follow-up assessment. At the 6-month follow-up, participants received their randomly determined incentive and were then scheduled for a second follow-up appointment 3 days later to detect new instances of drug use. Findings indicated that neither the magnitude nor mode of the incentives had a significant effect on rates of new drug use or perceptions of coercion. Consistent with the contingency management literature, higher payments and cash payments were associated with increased follow-up rates. Finally, the results suggest that higher magnitude payments may be more cost-effective by reducing the need for more intensive follow-up efforts.