Is Psychology a Science? HELL NO!!

Read more here- Source:

Excerpt:

What Is Science?

In order to consider whether psychology is a science, we must first define our terms. It is not overarching to say that science is what separates human beings from animals, and, as time goes by and we learn more about our animal neighbors here on Earth, it becomes increasingly clear that science is all that separates humans from animals. We are learning that animals have feelings, passions, and certain rights. What animals do not have is the ability to reason, to rise above feeling.

Science's goal is to create reasonable explanations (theories) to describe reality – theories that rely, not on feelings or passions, but on evidence. Science defines “evidence” in a special way that will seem rather strict to someone only familiar with the legal definition. To science, evidence is gathered and evaluated (and sometimes discarded) according to some rigid rules, rules meant to assure that a scientific theory reflects reality to the best of our ability.

How strict are science's rules of evidence? Well, let's first compare science to law. The legal definition of evidence is (as one example) a set of observations that appear to associate a particular person with a particular event. Typically, legal proceedings begin with an investigation meant to collect evidence, followed by a trial that establishes whether that evidence meets a criterion – “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal proceedings, and “according to the preponderance of evidence” in civil proceedings (in the US).

Introduction | What Is Science? | What Is Psychology?
Present-day Human Psychology | The Architecture of Science | Psychologists on Psychology
Conclusion | Further Reading |

The point here is that legal evidence is not remotely scientific evidence. Contrary to popular belief, science doesn't use sloppy evidentiary standards like “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and scientific theories never become facts. This is why the oft-heard expression “proven scientific fact” is never appropriate – it only reflects the scientific ignorance of the speaker. Scientific theories are always theories, they never become the final and only explanation for a given phenomenon.

As to the ever-popular expression “scientific law,” this is often an earnest effort by scientists to bridge the gap between the level of certainty required in science and that accepted in ordinary life. In fact and strictly speaking, there are no scientific laws, only theories about which we are very certain, like entropy and gravity, which, if they were to be tersely expressed in everyday language, would read: “Eventually it will break, and when it does, it is going to fall.”

About scientific evidence, philosopher John Stuart Mill said, “No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.” This saying aptly summarizes the difference between scientific evidence and every other kind of evidence, and it dramatizes the difference between science and ordinary human thinking.

When properly conducted, scientific investigations never draw conclusions directly from observations. This may sound unnecessarily strict, but it is necessary for science to accomplish what it does. To demonstrate this, here is a hypothetical conversation between a psychic wannabe (PW) and a scientist (S):

PW: “I successfully predicted 100 coin tosses, therefore I am psychic.”

S: “How many total coin tosses were there?”

PW: “200”.

S: “So you guessed half correctly, and half incorrectly, yes?”

PW: “Yes – isn't that amazing?”

S: “No, not really. It is the outcome predicted by chance.”

(a day goes by ...)

PW: “I correctly guessed eight coin tosses in a row! Now that's proof that I'm psychic!”

S: “How many total coin tosses this time?”

PW: “Umm, 256.”

S: “With that many coin tosses, eight sequential correct guesses has a probability of ½ of coming about by chance. You might be psychic, but there is a much more likely explanation – chance.”

This example highlights a cardinal rule of science: Always consider alternative explanations, never accept anything at face value.

In everyday life, people are regularly taken in by con men who rely on public ignorance of reason and science. Here's an example – you receive a mailing from someone who wants to be your financial advisor. He predicts that the stock market will fall (or rise) during the next month. At the end of the month, his prediction turns out to be correct. Then, for six months straight, he mails you a prediction, and each prediction turns out to be correct. In a quick calculation you realize you would have made several million dollars by following his advice.

Having “proven” his abilities, the financial advisor now wants you to give him control of your portfolio. His is the best performance you have ever seen, he obviously has special skills, what do you do? Well, hopefully you follow the cardinal rule:Always consider alternative explanations.

Here is a very likely alternative explanation – the “financial wizard” is a con man, a hustler. Here is how this well-known con works:

At the beginning of the six-month period, the "wizard" mails a prediction to a list of 16,384 people. He tells half the people the market will rise, the other half that it will fall. At the end of the first month, he drops half the names from the list (those who got an incorrect prediction) and mails a new prediction to the remaining names. He repeats this procedure for six months, each month dropping half the names and keeping those that got a correct prediction. At the end of six months, he has a list of 256 very hot prospects, each of whom has gotten a seemingly miraculous run of correct predictions, each of whom might just sign up for his "services," each of whom is about to be swindled.

Read more here- Source:

What Is Psychology?

Blurring of research, diagnosis and therapy.

·

Walter Freeman performing a lobotomy

In the 1950s, at the height of psychology's public acceptance, neurologist Walter Freeman created a surgical procedure known as "prefrontal lobotomy." As though on a quest and based solely on his reputation and skills of persuasion, Freeman singlehandedly popularized lobotomy among U.S. psychologists, eventually performing about 3500 lobotomies, before the dreadful consequences of this practice became apparent.

Introduction | What Is Science? | What Is Psychology?
Present-day Human Psychology | The Architecture of Science | Psychologists on Psychology
Conclusion | Further Reading | Feedback

At the height of Freeman's personal campaign, he drove around the country in a van he called the "lobotomobile," performing lobotomies as he traveled. There was plenty of evidence that prefrontal lobotomy was a catastrophic clinical practice, but no one noticed the evidence or acted on it. There was — and is — no reliable mechanism within clinical psychology to prevent this sort of abuse.

These examples are part of a long list of people who have tried to use psychology to give a scientific patina to their personal beliefs, perhaps beginning with Francis Galton (1822-1911), the founder and namer ofeugenics. Galton tried (and failed) to design psychological tests meant to prove his eugenic beliefs. This practice of using psychology as a personal soapbox continues to the present, in fact, it seems to have become more popular.

 

Facilitated Communication

This bogus field sprang into existence, fueled by the wish that specific disabled (autistic, severely retarded) people might be able to communicate with their loved ones after all. It purports to allow communication with a disabled person through the agency of a facilitator, someone who typically holds a writing implement (or operates a keyboard) simultaneously with the disabled person, and the two together create a written account of the disabled person's otherwise inaccessible experiences. Frequently, the “communication” seems to reveal that the disabled person is being abused horribly by parents or caretakers. This in turn has resulted in bogus legal actions, spurred by prosecutors who think psychology is a science.

Was this set of beliefs tested and shown to be flawed in a scientific study? No. Was it called into question because of the utterly fantastic content of the “communications”? No again. How then was the fraud uncovered? Well, the PBS television program “Frontline” showed up and taped some typical clinical practice, revealing some aspects of the practice anyone not brain-damaged should have been able to notice, such as the fact that the disabled person was often looking at the ceiling while supposedly coöperating in keyboard communication, a behavior that requires one to look at the keyboard at least occasionally. The facilitator, of course, was looking intently at the keyboard.

And finally, after evidence of the bogus nature of both the practice and the communications was demonstrated, was the field abandoned? Of course not – it is still widely practiced, with the difference that TV cameras are now typically excluded from the clinics.

Recovered Memory Therapy

This doesn't mean psychology lacks theories. It means the theories, when applied to humans, either cannot be tested in a scientifically rigorous way, or the tests fail without anyone noticing or caring. This explains why psychology's frequent theoretical failures tend to be discussed in a courtroom rather than a laboratory or a scientific journal.

As with most professions, scientists have a private language, using terms that seem completely ordinary but that convey special meaning to other scientists. For example, when a scientist identifies a field as a "descriptive science," he is politely saying it is not a science.

Present-day Human Psychology

Over the history of the DSM and as a result of valiant efforts, this "bible" of clinical psychology has come to define more and more conditions as evidence of mental illness. As an example, in the current edition, the following conditions are defined as mental illnesses:

· Stuttering

· Spelling Disorder

· Written Expression Disorder

· Mathematics Disorder

· Caffeine Intoxication/Withdrawal

· Nicotine use/Withdrawal

· Sibling Rivalry Disorder

· Phase of Life Problem

Putting aside for the moment the nebulous “phase of life problem,” excuse me? – “Sibling rivalry” is now a mental illness? Yes, according to the current DSM/ICD. And few are as strict about spelling as I am, but even I am not ready to brand as mentally ill those who (frequently) cannot accurately choose from among “site,” “cite” and “sight” when they write to comment on my Web pages. As to “mathematics disorder” being a mental illness, sorry, that just doesn't add up.

 

REST OF ARTICLE Read more here- Source:

Are Psychologists Hiding Evidence? –of course they are--$$$ Motivated $$$ A Need for Reform

 Source By Paul R. Lees-Haley, Ph.D., and John C. Courtney, Psy.D.

Psychological claims have grown steadily in the last 20 years. Psychological claims include allegations of emotional distress, brain damage (neuropsychological deficits) and fear of future illness. A growing problem in these cases is the unwillingness of some psychologists to disclose their tests and test data to attorneys wishing to depose or cross-examine them.

Many psychologists produce their data promptly when asked to do so by litigating attorneys. Others refuse, claiming that it is unethical to disclose tests or test data to insurers, attorneys or jurors. It is irresponsible for the courts to permit psychologists retained by parties in litigation to determine what is relevant for juries to review. Doing so allows psychologists to displace the court. Without seeing the tests and test data, an attorney cannot possibly fully understand the methodology or the reasoning process used to draw conclusions from test data, and cannot possibly fully cross-examine the expert on the reliability and validity of the allegedly scientific methodology. Giving psychologists this power is not in the best interests of consumers and is against social policy.

To prevent psychologists from hiding and withholding evidence, there needs to be a generally accepted policy for temporary, controlled disclosure of tests and test data in court proceedings. These policies and procedures should be consistent with applicable law. Until psychologists are required to comply with a systematic protocol for handling test data, they will continue to mislead adjusters, judges and attorneys with contradictory and erroneous claims about what is ethical and legal. Is it ethical?

Psychologists who claim that the ethical code of psychologists prohibits disclosure of tests and raw test data to attorneys, judges and jurors are misinformed. There is no such prohibition anywhere in the ethical principles and code of conduct of psychologists and there never has been. On the contrary, in the currently applicable ethics for psychologists, set by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1992, Ethical Standard 1.23(b) specifies that psychologists involved in legal proceedings have the responsibility to create and maintain documentation in detail, of sufficient quality to allow reasonable scrutiny in court proceedings. Competent psychologists know from the outset that their work will be scrutinized in the context of trial proceedings.

The claim that the ethics of the APA permit psychologists to release data only to other psychologists is equally inaccurate. The APA ethical standards explicitly say psychologists can release data to patients or clients as appropriate and they do not say psychologists can release it to other psychologists. The standards permit disclosure to persons who are "qualified to use" the information. However, there is no generally accepted agreement or guideline about who is qualified to use such information, and there is no generally accepted definition of what is meant by "use" the information, so psychologists are compelled to interpret this standard idiosyncratically and inconsistently. For example, if a psychologist claims an attorney is not qualified to use the data, one must ask, 'Who is better qualified than an attorney to use the data to cross-examine a psychologist?"

When Standard 2.02(b) is cited as a basis for not producing data for critical review, many questions arise. For example, why are patients or clients with far less education in general and far less relevant specialized education than adjusters, judges or attorneys considered "qualified" to use such information? And if psychologists can give the data to a patient or client, who is a plaintiff, then in effect they are giving it to the plaintiff attorney, but not the defense attorney. So, how can they claim to be unbiased?

Finally, if an attorney is the client, why would the psychologist not be able to release the data to the attorney, since 2.02(b) makes an exception of clients? Some opponents of disclosure argue that this last suggestion is inconsistent with the meaning and intent of the ethics code, arguing that what it says is not what it means. However, when asked to explain the correct interpretation and to respond to specific questions about this correct interpretation, psychologists produce inconsistent answers; there is no authoritative manual to which to refer for answers.

In some states, psychologists have persuaded their legislatures to make it illegal for psychologists to release test questions and test data to non-psychologists. This is a bizarre achievement in light of the widespread disclosure of tests, answers to tests and sample test data to the public. Copies of copyrighted tests and test manuals are sent to the Library of Congress. There, they are available to any library patron who asks, and accessible to residents of other areas through inter-library loan services, consultants and professional research services. The contents of many of the most widely used tests are available to the public in texts that can be purchased through public bookstores or borrowed from libraries.

In other words, psychologists in some states have succeeded in making it illegal for psychologists to exchange books and related materials any citizen can obtain in a public setting. This set of circumstances places psychologists in an absurd position. For example, is the ethical expert supposed to infer that it is unethical or illegal for a psychologist to tell judges they can obtain these data at a public library or at Barnes & Noble? Would that be criminal or unethical conduct? The law in California, for instance, is worded so generally that, if it means what it says, many of the best-known authors in psychological testing and their publishers are guilty of violating California law by selling their books in public bookstores.

There are other practices that further confuse psychologists who believe there may be ethical problems with test disclosure.

For example, the APA "statement on the disclosure of test data" states that: "The reprinting or description of individual test items in a publication (e.g., popular press, paper presentation, research article, book, technical report, handout) may jeopardize the integrity of many standardized tests." APA Ethical Standard 2.06 further states: "Psychologists do not promote the use of psychological assessment techniques by unqualified persons." Standard 2.02 directs us to persons "qualified to use" the information.

However, consider the book titled "The MMPI, MMPI-2, & MMPI-A in Court: A Practical Guide for Expert Witnesses and Attorneys," published by the APA (K.S. Pope, J.N. Butcher and J. Seelen, 1993). This text provides all of the questions in the MMPI and MMPI-2 to attorneys. Because APA actively markets this book to attorneys, it seems reasonable to infer that there is some sense in which attorneys are qualified to use the information APA sells to them -- if not, then APA is violating its own ethical standard by promoting the sale of test items to persons who are not qualified to use the information. But would a psychologist who believes it is unethical to disclose tests to attorneys assert that it is unethical for a psychologist to give an attorney a copy of a book sold to attorneys by the APA?

One problem thwarting reform efforts is a misguided sense of loyalty to the guild. Although vigorous criticism is a respected and important element in the advancement of science, some psychologists are critical of colleagues who criticize the profession. Some psychologists openly oppose permitting criticism of their own profession, suggesting that guild interests are more important than are public policy interests.

In 1995, an edition of the APA Monitor newsletter claimed that a recent past-president of the association recommended the development of enforceable ethical standards to cope with scientists who "harm" the profession of psychology by "publicly criticizing" unscientific practices by psychologists. Such a policy would be contrary to the "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct" (APA, 1992) as well as to basic principles of good science. Psychologists are expected to make known their reservations about their data, not suppress potentially disconfirming evidence (see also "Law and Human Behavior, 15," the Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 1991).

Who can use test information?

Some experts who refuse to disclose data indicate that it is unethical for them to release the data to anyone other than a licensed psychologist or neuropsychologist. However, competent psychologists know that licensure does not indicate testing expertise. Claiming that it is unethical to release data, except to a licensed psychologist, implies that eminently qualified psychologists who are not licensed are incompetent. This includes psychologists who work for the government, universities and private companies, who are not licensed for private practice.

The simple truth is that numerous experts other than licensed psychologists are qualified to interpret test data, depending on the test and the context. And many psychologists and neuropsychologists are not qualified to use most tests. (No criticism is implied here -- many psychologists are not interested in testing.) By insisting that the recipient of tests and test data be licensed, opponents of disclosure are, in effect, insisting that it is ethical to disclose the data to licensed psychologists who are not qualified, and unethical to disclose the data to unlicensed psychologists who are qualified.

Psychologists who refuse to disclose tests and test data to attorneys but offer to send it to another psychologist virtually never make any genuine effort to verify that they are sending the data to someone qualified to interpret the tests. In recent debates on this issue, opponents of disclosure have belittled the suggestion that they check to see that the person is qualified as excessive. They argue that it is sufficient to identify the recipient as a psychologist because they assume that psychologists will handle the data ethically. Since many psychologists are not members of APA or their state psychological associations, and not all psychologists agree with APA ethics, your attorney can show judges that this is an absurd claim.

States in which psychologists have persuaded legislators to enact codes restricting the release of tests or test data have generally enacted legislation based on a misinterpretation of the ethical guidelines. Therefore, these states' licensing boards are in the awkward position of enforcing a code based on misinterpretation of APA ethics against a psychologist who, in fact, is acting in a manner consistent with APA ethics.

On Oct. 24, 1995, in the case of Sharon L. and Warren E. Campbell v. Barry A. Mashek (Iowa District Court Consolidated Law Case No. 65070), the Fifth Judicial District of Iowa found the section of the Iowa code restricting release of test data to be unconstitutional under both federal and state law. In that case, several experts, including the renowned testing expert Dr. Paul Meehl, testified by affidavit that, "Allowing a psychologist to offer opinions at trial, which are not subject to full and fair examination, based on the underlying test data, is repugnant to the basic principles of science and would fundamentally hinder any neutral body, such as a jury, in trying to arrive at valid conclusions about the condition of an individual who has put their psychological condition at issue by bringing a lawsuit."

Current standards of practice

Another claim made by non-disclosing psychologists is that the normal standard of practice is not to permit anyone except clinical psychologists or neuropsychologists to have access to tests and raw test data. If your attorney will provide the judge with the facts, the judge will realize that this claim is not merely inaccurate, it is outrageous. The data to the contrary are overwhelming. The evidence unequivocally demonstrates that the standard of practice is to make tests and test data available to non-psychologists and persons who are not clinical psychologists or neuropsychologists throughout the U.S., Canada and elsewhere.

Numerous persons have access to psychological tests and test data, with the knowing cooperation of psychologists. They include teachers at all levels, from preschool through high school and beyond. Other occupations with access include, among others:

* teachers' aides

* principals and assistant principals

* special education teachers

* speech pathologists

* physical therapists

* managers * executives

* supervisors

* training and development specialists

* personnel managers

* human resources managers

* industrial psychologists

* licensed and unlicensed school psychologists

* licensed and unlicensed educational psychologists

* guidance counselors

* vocational experts

* rehabilitation consultants

* clerical and administrative personnel at all levels

* licensed and unlicensed counseling psychologists and school counselors

* research scientists

* court reporters

* attorneys

Journals that present extensive information about the raw data associated with psychological and neuropsychological tests are routinely made available to lay persons in public bookstores (see sidebar at end of story). The book "Neuropsychological Assessment" provides a good illustration because it is owned by many attorneys and presents entire tests, along with enough information to enable examinees to cheat on the tests.

Obviously the goal of the authors of these texts is to advance science, not to do something improper. However, their work serves as a valid illustration of what psychologists actually do in practice, as distinct from the representations of those psychologists who claim that the normal standard of practice is not to disclose tests and test data to the public.

APA's "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" (AERA, APA, NCME, 1985) -- arguably the most authoritative treatise for testing standards -- instructs psychologists to write test manuals in a style that will "communicate information to many different groups [because]... sometimes tests are selected for use by highly qualified people but are actually used by people with minimal training in testing." The point of this citation is not to imply that the authors approve, rather it is to note that this authoritative treatise depicts the true state of affairs with respect to psychological testing.

Other sections of the above standard acknowledge that non-psychologists use tests. For example: "In special education, tests are selected, administered and interpreted by school psychologists, classroom teachers, special educators and other professionals, such as speech pathologists and physical therapists. This diverse group of test users includes professionals with varying levels of training in measurement and evaluation, and with varying degrees of technical expertise in testing."

The APA also published "Responsible Test Use" specifically to address the problem of misuse of test data (see sidebar). Yet not once in 244 pages, 78 assessment case examples or 12 appendices, is there a statement that responsible test users must disclose test data only to clinical psychologists or neuropsychologists, or even to psychologists at all.

One of the grounds alleged as a basis for refusing to disclose test information is the assertion that attorneys will use the data in a misleading fashion before the jury or judge. We have no quarrel with the assumption underlying this argument, based on the way attorneys handle other information in courtrooms, but what is not clear is why psychologists feel they should receive unique treatment. Attorneys, after all, have abundant opportunities to correct misleading use of psychological test data. Counsel may retain a consultant or introduce witnesses to expose and correct any erroneous conclusions or misleading impressions. Counsel may cross-examine witnesses who mislead the jury. Motions in limine can block juror access to sensational, prejudicial or misleading data. Rebuttal witnesses can explain why misleading conclusions are erroneous and offer alternative conclusions.

A related objection to disclosure is that attorneys are not qualified to interpret the raw test data or the test questions and will use this information improperly. Part of the use an attorney intends -- impeaching the witness -- is normal courtroom practice, but some experts do not like it.

Psychologists are fairly easy to ridicule with inkblots and tests like the Thematic Apperception Test, Draw-a-Person test and selected items from other tests blown up as exhibits before the jury. Such ridicule ranges from misleading distortions of valuable, valid procedures to insightful, accurate criticisms. In either case, however, there is no basis for claiming that psychologists should be exempt from vigorous cross-examination on the grounds for opinions, or from having their work scrutinized and criticized by persons who are not members of the guild.

Often, the records withheld on the grounds that raw data are not interpretable by attorneys include plain-language questionnaires completed by the plaintiff, family members and other lay persons. These questionnaires often contain material admissions concerning the plaintiff's functioning -- material admissions expressed in plain language that is clear to the jury, not technical language that can only be understood by a psychologist.

Another objection to the disclosure of test information is that copyrights will be lost and tests will be released into public domain if the data are revealed. In theory, this has a ring of truth. However, this claim buckles under thoughtful analysis. Copyrights pervade all disciplines; psychology has no unique objection to the photocopying of documents. Moreover, what motive would attorneys, judges and jurors have for copying and circulating psychological tests? Psychologists are the ones with an incentive to reproduce test materials, not attorneys, judges or jurors.

In fact, we often see examples of improper copying in the files of psychologists, e.g., photocopying tests instead of purchasing them through test distributors. We challenge colleagues who claim copyrights will be lost or the testing industry will be harmed by disclosing tests in forensic settings to produce evidence to support their allegations. We are not aware of a single case in the entire history of psychology in which a test publisher's copyright was lost because a test was disclosed to attorneys in litigation, photocopied for use in litigation or displayed in a public courtroom. In view of the widespread availability of tests in bookstores and libraries, claims that showing tests to attorneys or juries leads to a loss of copyright have little, if any, credibility.

Finally, some psychologists object to the disclosure of test information on the grounds that non-psychologists cannot appreciate the subtleties and technical nature of psychological tests. They argue that jurors will reach erroneous conclusions about the meaning of the data. Although it is reasonable to believe that jurors are not psychological testing experts, once again it is not clear why psychologists should be entitled to unique status. Complexity of data is not unique to psychology. Jurors may not understand physics, toxicology, epidemiology, statistics, aerospace, genetics or chemistry, but experts in these fields are expected to produce all their raw data and submit to public cross examination on the data and how they reason with it.

Psychologists appearing as experts in court claim to offer scientifically verifiable opinions -- opinions that express scientific knowledge. But it is unscientific for experts to come to court with mere conclusions. Experts are responsible for being prepared to show the trier of fact what data they relied upon and how they reasoned with these data to reach their conclusions. Experts cannot achieve this goal while hiding the data.

Science in a closet is not science, and testimony based upon undisclosed data is contrary to the constitutional right to cross-examine witnesses. Decisions like Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999), require the courts to have access to the elements of the expert's methodology in order to evaluate its reliability [see Claims, June 1999, p. 32, for related article].

Psychologists' refusals to disclose tests and test data, in the context of court proceedings, have gone too far. Psychologists are testifying to contradictory assertions of fact and claiming to follow ethical standards that are contrary to their conduct.

It is irresponsible to permit psychologists retained by parties in adversarial proceedings to determine what is relevant or acceptable for juries to review. Psychologists are not competent to replace judges and should not be allowed to keep evidence in secret, shielded from the eyes of the trier of fact. Psychologists who refuse to disclose their data and submit to cross-examination in the normal manner are, in effect, claiming they are above the normal standards of the courts. This is contrary to the best interests of consumers and against social policy.

There is a need for a reasonable procedure for disclosure of psychological test information during court proceedings, after which the material may be sealed or returned. By providing this disclosure, psychologists can participate in open forums like other scientists, instead of adopting the peculiar practice of hiding data like a cult. We recommend that such a procedure be developed by a joint panel of the American Psychological Society, American Bar Association, American Judicature Society, American Psychological Association and American Association for the Advance-ment of Science, with input from consultants who are experienced expert witnesses in a variety of jurisdictions.

This procedure should contain guidelines for the maintenance of forensic records, including tests and test data. It is important to obtain suggestions and criticisms from diverse geographical areas and different types of proceedings because procedural rules, case law and code vary substantially among the states, in federal court and in various administrative forums. This panel should consider the views of those who may recommend avoiding disclosure of psychological data. We recommend that such an expert panel address not only disclosure procedures but also the issue of attorney coaching of clients in preparation for interviews and testing by psychologists. Otherwise, as often happens in this life, the solution to one problem will complicate another problem.

---

This article originally was published in Claims magazine.

Dr. Paul Lees-Haley is a Woodland Hills, Calif.-based psychologist and a diplomate of the American Board of Professional Psychology.

Dr. John Courtney is a clinical neuropsychologist practicing in Mishawaka, Ind.

---

Neuropsychological Testing References

American Psychological Association (1993). "Record Keeping Guidelines," Washington, D.C., American Psychological Association.

Cohen, L. J. (1997). Litigating the neurotoxic injury case, Trial Diplomacy Journal, 5.

Cohen, R.J.; Montague, P.; Nathanson, L.S.; and Swerdlik, M.E. (1988). "Psychological Testing," Mountain View, Calif., Mayfield Publishing.

Committee on Legal Issues (1996). Strategies for private practitioners coping with subpoenas or compelled testimony for client records or test data, "Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27."

Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment (1996). Statement on the disclosure of test data. American Psychologist, 51.

Eyde, L.D.; Robertson, G.J.; Krug, S.E.; Moreland, K.L.; Robertson, A.G.; Shewan, C.M.; Harrison, P.L.; Porch, B.E.; Hammer, A.L.; and Primoff, E.S. (1993). "Responsible Test Use: Case Studies for Assessing Human Behavior," Washington, D.C., American Psychological Association.

Kaplan, R.M., and Saccuzzo, D.P. (1989). "Psychological Testing (2nd ed.)," Pacific Grove, Calif., Brooks/Cole.

Lees-Haley, P.R. (1997). Attorneys influence expert evidence in forensic psychological and neuropsychological cases. "Assessment, 4."

Lezak, M.D. (1983). "Neuropsychological Assessment" (2nd ed., 1983), (3rd ed., 1995), New York City, Oxford University Press.

Matarazzo, R.G. (1995). The ethical neuropsychologist: Psychological report standards in neuropsychology, "The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9," (Appendix I).

Reitan, R.M., and Wolfson, D., (1993). "The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery: Theory and Clinical Interpretation (2nd ed.)," Neuropsychology Press, S. Tucson, Ariz.

Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1991 & 1998). "A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests," New York City, Oxford University Press.

Tranel, D. (1994). The release of psychological data to non-experts: Ethical and legal considerations, "Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25."

Wetter, M.W., and Corrigan, S.K. (1995). Providing information to clients about psychological tests: A survey of attorneys' and law students' attitudes, "Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26."

Youngjohn, J. R. (1995). Confirmed attorney coaching prior to neuropsychological evaluation. "Assessment, 2."

Ziskin, J. (1996). "Coping With Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony," Marina del Rey, Calif., Law and Psychology Press.

---

"It's monetary, psychologists and therapists make huge money doing evaluations and therapies." of Fictitious Syndromes as Parental Alienation in Child Custody cases.

$$$$$ It ALL  about the MONEY $$$$$$$$$$$$

Psychiatric experts Court Whores a$$e$$ parental alienation

THEY ARE NOT EXPERTS THEY ARE VOODOO WITCH DOKTOR MONEY MAKERS the cost?? for $$$$ – blood from mothers and their children.

• Joseph Goldberg, alleged to have left the country for owing $86,000 in back child support, has operated his snake oil kingdom from Toronto for some time now, cold-calling psychologists to get them to sign up with him to provide “services” for so-called “parental alienation syndrome,” the legal tool of abuse most popular with abusers to get custody of children away from their victims.

 

SNAKE OIL CONFERENCE IN SESSION: JUNK SCIENCE IS KING AT THE CANADIAN SYMPOSIUM FOR PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME IN NEW YORK THIS WEEKEND 

 

• Dr. Bernet sells his “testimony” to those who need it, such as violent murderers, postulating his theories on why they should be excused for murdering.

What is Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)?

 

Approximately  one in two marriages in the United States ends in divorce, affecting about a  million children per year. About 10% of these divorces involve custody litigation. Some children are or become emotionally estranged from one or both parents during this process. The cause of this estrangement cannot be determined without an in depth understanding of the family's history and dynamics. Research has shown that the issues underlying parent attachment or estrangement  are complex and do not lend themselves to easy answers. However, some child custody evaluators rely on simplistic "junk science" theories to explain the child's behavior and recommend "one size fits all" type solutions to force the child to divide their love 50-50 between their parents.

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is one such theory. This unsophisticated, pseudoscientific theory explains a child's estrangement from one parent or allegations of abuse at the hands of one parent by blaming the other. The theory, developed by the late Richard A. Gardner, M.D., portrays the preferred parent (usually the mother under PAS) as an evil "alienator" who is virtually solely responsible for turning a vulnerable child against their estranged parent (usually the father under PAS).

The simplistic solution is to separate the child from the parent they prefer and place them with the parent they reject or report as having abused them. Despite the fact that many of the assumptions underlying PAS theory have repeatedly been disproven scientifically (see below), Gardner believes that judges should back up PAS-trained therapists' conclusions with the full force of the law and impose fines, permanent loss of custody, and jail terms to parents (mainly mothers) who do not comply.

Although some mental health professionals and child custody evaluators, attorneys, and judges have been quick to accept and admit PAS as evidence in these disputes, there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS is a valid syndrome or that the so called "alienator's" behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child's behavior towards the target parent (Walker et al, 2005). In fact, the majority of mental health and legal experts who have studied the issue consider PAS theory to be both erroneous and dangerous to the children involved.

To learn more about the problems with PAS:

• Are Protective Parents Losing Custody to Alleged Abusers?Evidence shows that women who raise concerns about family violence during custody litigation run the risk of losing their children
• The Validity of Abuse Allegations in Custody and Visitation Disputes: An Annotated Review of Scholarly Literature
• The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome(see below)

 

The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome

American Psychological Association. (1996). Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, Washington, D.C : Author.
Available at http://www.apa.org/pi/pii/familyvio/issue5.html

Noting that custody and visitation disputes appear to occur more frequently when there is a history of domestic violence.  Family courts often do not consider the history of violence between the parents in making custody and visitation decisions.  In this context, the nonviolent parent may be at a disadvantage, and behavior that would seem reasonable as a protection from abuse may be misinterpreted as a sign of instability. Psychological evaluators not trained in domestic violence may contribute to this process by ignoring or minimizing the violence and by giving inappropriate pathological labels to women's responses to chronic victimization.  Terms such as `parental alienation' may be used to blame the women for the children's reasonable fear or anger toward their violent father." (p. 100).

Bruch, Carol S. Parental (2001).Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: Getting It Wrong in Child Custody Cases. Family Law Quarterly, 35, 527 Available on-line athttp://www.abanet.org/family/familylaw/fam353_06_bruch_527_552.pdf

According to Bruch, the deficiencies in PAS theory are multiple. In addition to its lack of scientific support, Bruch notes the following problems:

First, Gardner confounds a child's developmentally related reaction to divorce and high parental conflict (including violence) with psychosis. In doing so, he fails to recognize parents' and children's angry, often inappropriate, and totally predictable behavior following separation.

Second, possibly as a consequence of these errors and his tail-of-the-elephant view, Gardner vastly overstates the frequency of cases in which children and custodial parents manufacture false allegations or collude to destroy the parent-child relationship.

Third, in this fashion, PAS shifts attention away from the perhaps dangerous behavior of the parent seeking custody to that of the custodial parent. This person, who may be attempting to protect the child, is instead presumed to be lying and poisoning the child. Indeed, for Gardner , the concerned custodial parent's steps to obtain professional assistance in diagnosing, treating, and protecting the child constitute evidence of false allegations.

Fourth, Gardner believes that, particularly in serious cases, the relationship of an alienated child with the rejected parent will be irreparably damaged, probably ending for all time,

Fifth, as these sources suggest, Gardner 's proposed remedy for extreme cases is unsupported and endangers children

Dallam, S. J. (1999). Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is it scientific? In E. St. Charles & L. Crook (Eds.), Expose: The failure of family courts to protect children from abuse in custody disputes. Los Gatos, CA: Our Children Our Children Charitable Foundation.

This article examines the scientific support for PAS along with its underlying assumptions and logic. This theory's relevance to child abuse allegations that arise during child custody disputes is also explored.

Dallam, S. J. (1998). Dr. Richard Gardner: A review of his theories and opinions on atypical sexuality, pedophilia, and treatment issues.Treating Abuse Today, 8(1), 15-23.

While Gardner 's theories about PAS and mass sexual abuse hysteria have been widely criticized, his views on bona fide child sexual abuse and his treatment recommendations for working with incestuous families have largely been ignored. This article provides an in-depth exploration of Gardner 's views on pedophilia and his therapeutic approach to working with families in which a child has been molested by a parent

Dallam, S. J. (n.d.). Are Allegations of Sexual Abuse That Arise During Child Custody Disputes Less Likely to Be Valid? An Annotated Review of the Research.

This article examines the scientific support for PAS along with its underlying assumptions and logic. This theory's relevance to child abuse allegations that arise during child custody disputes is also explored.

Faller, K. C. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome: What is it and what data support it? Child Maltreatment, 3(2), 100-115. (PDF)

This article describes proposed characteristics and dynamics of PAS, and the methods used to document its presence. Research data related to various tenets of the syndrome are then reviewed. Dr. Faller notes that

"The parental alienation syndrome is a nondiagnostic syndrome. It is only useful for mental health professionals in explaining the symptom presentation if they know from other information that an abuse allegation is a deliberately made, false accusation. The syndrome cannot be used to decide whether the child has been sexually abused. As a consequence, it is of little probative value to courts in making decisions about the presence or absence of sexual abuse .... An additional problem with the parental alienation syndrome is that virtually every symptom described by Gardner as evidence of its presence, and consequent false charges against the accused parent, is open to opposing interpretations" (p. 111).

After reviewing the relevant research Faller concludes:

"No data are provided by Gardner to support the existence of the syndrome and its proposed dynamics. In fact, the research and clinical writing of other professionals leads to a conclusion that some of its tenets are wrong and that other tenets represent a minority view" (p. 112).

Jennifer Hoult. (Spring 2006). The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy, Children's Legal Rights Journal, 26(1) pp. 1-61. (download PDF)

Abstract: Since 1985, in jurisdictions all over the United States, fathers have been awarded sole custody of their children based on claims that mothers alienated these children due to a pathological medical syndrome called Parental Alienation Syndrome ("PAS").  Given that some such cases have involved stark outcomes, including murder and suicide, PAS' admissibility in U.S. courts deserves scrutiny.

This article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the science, law, and policy issues involved in PAS' evidentiary admissibility.  As a novel scientific theory, PAS' admissibility is governed by a variety of evidentiary gatekeeping standards that seek to protect legal fora from the influence of pseudo-science.  This article analyzes every precedent-bearing decision and law review article referencing PAS in the past twenty years, finding that precedent holds PAS inadmissible and the majority of legal scholarship views it negatively.  The article further analyzes PAS' admissibility under the standards defined in Frye v. United States, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, and Rules 702 and 704(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, including analysis of PAS' scientific validity and reliability; concluding that PAS remains an ipse dixit and inadmissible under these standards.

The article also analyzes the writings of PAS' originator, child psychiatrist Richard Gardner - including twenty-three peer-reviewed articles and fifty legal decisions he cited in support of his claim that PAS is scientifically valid and legally admissible - finding that these materials support neither PAS' existence, nor its legal admissibility.  Finally, the article examines the policy issues raised by PAS' admissibility through an analysis of PAS' roots in Gardner 's theory of human sexuality, a theory that views adult-child sexual contact as benign and beneficial to the reproduction of the species.

The article concludes that science, law, and policy all support PAS inadmissability.

(Note: The Children's Legal Rights Journal is published by the American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law, and Loyola University Chicago School of Law)

Justice for Children. (2001). Amicus Curiae Brief of Justice For Children in Linville v. Linville (PDF).

Brief filed by Justice for Children in a custody case heard by Maryland Court of Special Appeals. The brief provides a Frye-analysis asking whether evidence of PAS is reliable and relevant in child custody cases. discusses the lack of scientific support for PAS rendering it inadmissible under Frye.

Kleinman, T. G. (2004). Strategies and Pretrial Hearings for Child Protection. Journal of Child Custody, 1 (2), 105-112. (pdf)

In order to provide maximum protection to abused children, the protective parent or counsel must avail themselves of all of the tools at their disposal from the very start of litigation in custody and/or visitation disputes involving family violence. This column sets forth examples of pretrial motions, hearings, and other strategies. These are used to provide the court with detailed information about the abuse that has happened and the impact that the courts decisions will have upon the children involved.
[Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com>Website: <http://www. HaworthPress.com> 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

McDonald, M. (1998). The myth of epidemic false allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases. Court Review, 12-19.
http//www.omsys.com/mmcd/courtrev.htm

It is commonly believed that false allegations of sexual abuse in the context of divorce are epidemic, that most allegations made in the context of divorce are made by vindictive mothers and that these allegations are almost always false. These beliefs are not supported by scientific evidence.

Meier, Joan S. (January 2009). Parental Alienation Syndrome & Parental Alienation: Research Reviews. VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women.
HTML: http://new.vawnet.org/category/Main_Doc.php?docid=1679

This VAWnet document provides a historical and research overview of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation, identifies strategic issues for advocates working with victims, and offers guidelines to improve courts' treatment of these issues.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2006). Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide (2nd edition). Reno, NV: NCJFCJ. (download PDF)

EXCERPT from page 24: "The discredited "diagnosis" of "PAS" (or allegation of "parental alienation"), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children's behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be "alienated" have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children's responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children's other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which children are critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications), and situations in which children have their own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the children by voicing their concerns." Read whole excerpt

Poliacoff, J. H., Greene, C. L., & Smith, L. (1999). Parental Alienation Syndrome: Frye v. Gardner in the family courts. Family Law Commentator (Florida Bar), 25(4), 19-20, 30-33.
http://www.gate.net/%7Eliz/liz/poliacoff.htm

This article explores the shortcomings of PAS under Frye and Daubert and reviews relevant case law pertaining to the admissibility of PAS in court. Ethical dilemmas that mental health professionals face when serving as experts in these cases are explored and alternative areas for inquiry into the source of impaired parent child relationships occurring in the context of child custody  litigation are offered.

Ragland, E. R. & Fields, H. (2004). Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know. NCPCA Update , 16(6-7). Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute.
Part one: NCPCA Update Newsletter Volume 16, Number 6, 2003
Part two: NCPCA Update Newsletter Volume 16, Number 7, 2003

The purpose of this article is to briefly discuss the major premises upon which PAS is based, and to identify key weaknesses. Part 2 of this Update considers case law and strategies for meeting PAS defenses.

Walker, L. E., Brantley, K. L., & Rigsbee, J. A. (2005). A Critical Analysis of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Its Admissibility in the Family Court. Journal of Child Custody, 1(2), 47-74. [download from Haworth $]

ABSTRACT: Over the past three decades, a syndrome, titled Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), has been proposed to explain behaviors by a child who refuses to spend time with a parent and actually denigrates that parent within the context of a child custody dispute. The association of certain negative behaviors by one parent (called the 'alienator') towards the other parent (called the 'target parent') are said to be the cause of the child's (called 'alienated child') behavior. Although some mental health professionals and child custody evaluators, attorneys, and judges have been quick to accept and admit PAS as evidence in these disputes, especially in those that have cross-complaints alleging family violence, there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS exists or that the alienator's behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child's behavior towards the target parent. It is argued here that the PAS construct itself is flawed and its use by custody evaluators to justify placement with the rejected parent may result in more serious damage to the child who is taken away from the parent to whom the child has bonded. These authors suggest that the PAS argument has been accepted by some courts that seem almost eager to punish the so-called alienating parent without regard for the immediate or long-term impact on the child. PAS has had difficulty meeting Daubert or Frye admissibility standards in criminal courts but few family courts have held hearings to determine its scientific integrity. This article attempts to help those working with custody issues understand how the PAS construct fails to meet scientific standards and should not be admissible in courts.

Williams, R.J. (2001). Should judges close the gate on PAS and PA?Family Court Review, 39 (3), 267-282.

Wood, C. L. (1994). The parental alienation syndrome: A dangerous aura of reliability. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 27, 1367-1415.
http://fact.on.ca/Info/pas/wood94.htm

Attorney Cheri Wood (1994) suggests that although Gardner 's self-published theories do not have any empirical grounding, they have been given a "dangerous and undeserved aura of reliability and trustworthiness" in the courtroom. Wood concludes that PAS should not be admissible in court for the following reasons: (1) because it has not gained acceptance among experts in the field, (2) because of difficulties in determining causation, and (3) because it endangers children.

Zirogiannis, L. (2001). Evidentiary issues with parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review, 39(3), 334-343.

More articles on issues related to abuse and custody

Return to Page: Abuse and Custody Disputes: Scientific and Legal Issues

EUGENE BOWMAN a Murderer walking Free - BEWARE!!! Mother and daughter, Tina and Bethany Sinclair Vanished w/o a Trace

Hey Eugene, look over your shoulder as your time is nearing an end. Think a few postcards your way on a regular basis just to let you know you are being thought of…..

EUGENE BOWMAN

34 Pond Brook Rd. West Chesterfield, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03466 Cheshire County

http://www.missingtinaandbeth.org/index.html

February 4, 2010 marked the 9th Anniversary of the Disappearance of Tina and Bethany Sinclair.
Mother and daughter, Tina and Bethany Sinclair have been missing from Mountain Road in West Chesterfield, NH since Feb. 4th, 2001.

Please ring the phones off the hook this OUTRAGE!!!!

Please join us, and repost!

---

Our new Facebook Page

has been established for discussions about our case.  Please join us:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Missing-Tina-and-BethanyOrg/163575153653706?ref=mf

---

Last update:  December 2009 - the NH Cold Case Unit, recently granted and established, has now been handed our case to consider...... 

If you have any information about my missing sister, Tina Sinclair, and my missing niece, Bethany Sinclair, please contact me at:  mypurplestar@aol.com, webmaster@missingtinaandbeth.org,  or the newly formed NH Cold Case Unit:  http://doj.nh.gov/coldcaseunit/listing/bethany-sinclair.htm

Maura Murray is also missing from NH.

Sincerely, Sharon Garry family and friends

 

Registration of Criminal Offenders

http://www4.egov.nh.gov/nsor/Display.aspx?offenderID=2798

Date of Photo
1/3/2010

BOWMAN, EUGENE V. JR
Alias(es): Bowman, Van

Last Reported Address:
P - 34 Pond Brook Rd West Chesterfield, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03466 Cheshire County
Date of Birth: 12/27/1958
Age: 51

Race: White
Sex: Male
Height: 6'4"

Hair: Brown
Eyes: Brown
Weight: 225 lbs.

Other Relevant Physical Descriptions:
Scars, Marks, Tattoos, Piercings:
SCARS: Leg, left

Court: Cheshire
Adjudication Date: 5/23/2001

Qualifying Offense(s):
NH RSA 632-A:2, II Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault (Victim under 13 y.o.)

NH RSA 632-A:2, II Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault (Victim under 13 y.o.)

NH RSA 632-A:2, II Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault (Victim under 13 y.o.)

Status of Parole, Probation or Supervised Release: Parole Date: 4/10/2016

Criminal History:
Agg. Fel. Sex. Assault 632-A:2  Conviction Date: 2/6/2001
Agg. Fel. Sex. Assault 632-A:2  Conviction Date: 2/6/2001
Agg. Fel. Sex. Assault 632-A:2  Conviction Date: 2/6/2001

BOWMAN is required to register under New Hampshire law. Positive identification cannot be established unless a fingerprint comparison is made.

* Address Types:
P = Permanent Address
S = School Address
T = Temporary Address

Return to Search

More Resources

The Law

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

Frequently Asked Questions

New Hampshire Department of Safety | 33 Hazen Drive | Concord, NH 03305
TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964

NH.gov | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Policy

SNAKE OIL CONFERENCE IN SESSION: JUNK SCIENCE IS KING AT THE CANADIAN SYMPOSIUM FOR PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME IN NEW YORK THIS WEEKEND

Source: Rights For Mother

Well, those snake oil salesmen are at it again.  This time they are in New York City selling their goods and services. 

Joseph Goldberg, alleged to have left the country for owing $86,000 in back child support, has operated his snake oil kingdom from Toronto for some time now, cold-calling psychologists to get them to sign up with him to provide “services” for so-called “parental alienation syndrome,” the legal tool of abuse most popular with abusers to get custody of children away from their victims.

Many of the so-called “experts” at this snake oil conference have issues, and it could be downright dangerous to deal with them. Their main concern is to make money from their testifying services and book sales.

  Tops on the list is Dr. William Bernet, the inventor of the new and improved “parental alienation disorder” that is up for consideration “from outside sources” for inclusion into the DSM-V, the diagnostic and insurance code bible used by psychiatrists and psychologists.

Dr. Bernet sells his “testimony” to those who need it, such as violent murderers, postulating his theories on why they should be excused for murdering. 

While I was down in the hospital after my accident, I had a comment come in from the ex-wife of the murderer Dr. Bernet was making excuses for, and I wasn’t surprised.

  Everyone knows that court hearings have very little to do with the truth, especially where violence against women is concerned.  It centers on experts who sell their testimony, often on highly subjective topics such as psychology, where truth has nothing to do with anything they say.  Here is her comment (unedited):

pennywaldroup

2010/09/12 at 12:41 am

william bernet did you do the study on brad waldroup that how well he lies and how he was never able to except fault for his actions he wasnt abused as a child he was a spoiled bratt i know because im his ex wife and has known him since the age of thirteen i have four children with this man and if it was genetic then your saying my children could be passed this gene whatever how much money was you paid to take that stand by the way you sound like mr dry eyes commercial talkin on the stand you bored the whole courtroom with your bullcrap you tell me how do you sleep at night knowing that you help a cold blooded murder i just want you to know maybe your back pocket is full from doing your job but there was nine children that was terrible affected by this

This was from Psychology Today this summer:

July 13, 2010, Evolutionary Psychology

Pity the poor murderer, his genes made him do it

Did his genes make him murder?

Published on July 13, 2010

by Nigel Barber, Ph.D.

A criminal defense attorney has many arrows in his/her quiver. The latest is the “warrior gene.” Having this gene saved Bradley Waldroup from a first degree murder conviction.

The charges stemmed from a bloody rampage in which Waldroup shot his wife’s friend Leslie Bradshaw, eight times, killing her before attempting to kill his wife by chopping her up with a machete.

Waldroup had been drinking as he waited for his estranged wife and their four children who were to spend the weekend at his trailer home in the mountains of Tennessee. When his wife said that she was leaving with her friend, he removed the key from Penny Waldroup’s van to ensure that they could not leave, thereby establising criminal intent. Waldroup then launched his deadly attack on the pair.

The “warrior gene”

Waldroup’s defense attorneys ordered a test and established that he had the warrior gene. Like most such biological defenses, there is a germ of scientific truth combined with a hefty dose of junk science, including clever labeling. The warrior gene might be called other things, such as the gambling gene, the depression gene, the irritability gene, or, even the live-in-a-trailer gene because its effects are contingent on an abusive childhood.

The scientific rationale for diminished responsibility is that a variant of the relevant gene, known as MAO-A is linked to an under active prefrontal cortex, this being a key area of the brain that inhibits antisocial impulses. The gene is also associated with antisocial behavior in European Americans (but not others) but only if they were abused as children (1).

The gene has recently acquired some evidence linking it to impulsive aggression. In an experiment where subjects were provoked by having money winnings taken from them, people with the MAO-A variant proved slightly more vengeful but only if they lost the higher of two amounts of money(2). They asked for the provoker to drink a larger amount of hot sauce as punishment. Whether this experiment is more relevant to homicidal aggression, or sensitivity to the taste of hot sauce is anybody’s guess.

So far, a skilled defense lawyer might weave a tale that the bad gene had gotten the better of the European American defendant. The key scientific problem is that about 34 percent of Europeans have the warrior gene. Yet, homicide is extremely rare at a population level with only about one person in 100 committing a homicide during their lives. If the gene were used to predict homicide, it would be wrong more than 33 times for every one occasion that it was right (3).

Just the facts

This brings us back to the Waldroup case tried in March, 2009, where the warrior gene formed the kernel of a diminished responsibility defense. This defense received enthusiastic endorsement in a recent NPR report by Barbara Bradley Haggerty (“Can Your Genes Make You Murder?”)

Waldroup’s defense was not a simple genetic defense because it was combined with the normally ineffective abuse excuse. Defense expert William Bernet of Vanderbilt University argued that the combination of the warrior gene and being abused as a child was a dangerous cocktail that increased the likelihood of committing a violent offense.

Some of the jurors were persuaded by this defense. According to one, Debbie Beatty: “A diagnosis is a diagnosis, it’s there. A bad gene is a bad gene.”

Junk science is also junk science. There is no getting away from that either, especially if it helps the defense to save a defendant’s life.

1. Crampton, P., & Parkin, C. (2007, March 2). Warrior genes and risk-taking science. Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 120 (1250).

2. McDermot, R., et al. (2009). Monoamine oxidase A gene (MAOA) predicts behavioral aggression following provocation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 2118-2123.

3. Caspi, A. et al. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297, 851-854.

What really brought it all home was, whether it involves so-called “parental alienation disorder” or murder, removing responsibility for what an abusive parent or murderer may have done is what these people specialize in.  There’s always an excuse when you use JUNK SCIENCE.  Thanks Penny for your thoughts.  I am so sorry for all your family has gone through dear.

How YOU can do something small to end Court Ordered Child ABUSE!

How YOU can do something small to end Court Ordered Child ABUSE!

by American Mothers Political Party on Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 5:23pm

A very special thanks to Mom Linda  Marie Sacks (who does the talking in the spots) and Elizabeth Fillingim, The Center for Judicial Excellence and California Protective Parents Association for helping put this amazing Public Service Announcement together. The time is NOW to also do some small activism in order to make sure our voices are not ignored anymore!

Two small steps for our children and theirs...the future will not be bright if this abuse of power continues. A tragedy can make villains...but it can also make a super-hero too! Who better the super-hero for our children than us, their Mothers? No one.

1.  HOW TO VIEW THEM   The spots can be found at the ftp site here:ftp://ftp2.wltz.com/pub/UPLOAD/

The files are titled "Child Custody PSA - 2 x 30 - HD.mov" and "Child Custody PSA - 2 x 30 - SD.mpg". 

Anyone can download the file by right-clicking on the appropriate file (high definition or standard definition) and choosing "save target as" or "save link as" (depending on browser).

2.  WHAT DO I DO WITH THEM? Even if you can't open them, your local TV station CAN!

Anyone anywhere anytime can use them, give them the ftp link. 

It will be most effective if you select the OTHER TV stations in your markets to solicit. 

Call them, ask for the Public Service Announcements Coordinator and ask them if they will consider running one of two PSAs on DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, since it is DV Awareness Month anyways!

Keep it simple and short, they are busy. Info on TV stations and PSAs...by law, the Federal Communications Commission REQUIRES TV stations to air Public Service Announcements. 

We have been advised that the nicer we are with the TV Station (you get more bees with honey), the more chance you'll get the spot aired in other, better prime time programming. 

Ask nicely, tell them you know they'll air them overnight, but what can we do to get maybe 5 spots during prime time this month?

See what they say.

Do this for both Network TV and Cable TV. Both are just as good. Network is ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox. Cable is everything else. 

Cable stations are more regional than in every city, but you have a cable network somewhere. 

Whomever you pay your monthly cable bill to, that's your local cable station. Contact them as well.

Internet use of these PSAs is fine as well. Post them on your site, your therapists site, your attorney's site. 

Go online and find other domestic violence sites and child abuse sites and ask them to post them as well.

These videos will do us no good if they sit on this FTP site and don't get used. 

  Also if you do get a TV station to air the PSAs send them a nice thank you note (not email) and if you get a moment we should also do the same to Center For Judicial Excellence and California Protective Parents Assc. for doing all of this for us.

                                                                                 PEACE & LOVE                                                                                                     

American Mothers Political Party

 

Children Against Court Appointed Child Abuse- American Children Who Sought Asylum Underground: Update October 1 2010 - We are Americans again! Jennifer (Tveter) Collins

 Children Against Court Appointed Child Abuse

www.CA3cacaca.blogspot.com

October 1, 2010

 

Hi Everyone,

 

This is Jennifer Collins. Do you remember me? 

 

I am the kid who: was abused by my father during visitation, told my mom about the abuse, wasn’t protected by the courts, was taken away from my loving mother, was further abused by my father; hit, beaten, kicked, strangled & suffocated, had my bruises and cries for help further ignored by visitation supervisors, ran away from my fathers house, went on the run with my mom, escaped the United States to Europe, was arrested and held in jail (at 7 years old) with my mother and brothers, spent 3 years living in refugee centers, was the first American to receive asylum in another country, lived anonymously abroad for 14 years, was eventually found by the FBI, started an email campaign to keep my mother out of American prisons, successfully helped in getting all kidnapping charges against my mother dismissed, took on vicious father’s rights zealots who were supporting my abusive father, succeeded in totally discrediting the almighty Glenn Sacks, continued with my university studies in psychology and pedagogy, became a child advocate, went to Washington DC., met with members of congress, worked on proposing a new law to protect abused children in custody disputes (Abuse Accountability Act), spoke at several domestic violence conventions, had numerous media interviews, radio & television appearances, went through the tedious re-identification process at the American consulate, was sworn in as an American again, is waiting to receive my first American passport and is preparing to return to the United States of America!  

 

Yup that is me and I have amazing news!  We are preparing to come home!  Can you believe it?

 

We have been promised our American passports within 10 days! Only 6 more months until my younger brother is 18 and then we are free!  We can come out of exile and return HOME!

 

Life is wonderful!

 

We will keep you updated!

Jennifer

 

Ps. Here are a few of my latest blog entries:

 

Longing to go home to Marblhead Massachusetts

Kidnapped children long to return home to Marblehead Massachusetts

On July 1 1992 I left my home in Marblehead Massachusetts to go to Minnesota for a scheduled visit with my father. Even though I was only 7 years old at the time I knew, suspected or feared that I would never return home to 234 Washington Avenue in the old town of this quaint little New England seaside village. 18 years and several journeys later we are finally preparing to go home to Marblehead.

I remember my mother promising me that summer that we would be coming home after a short visit to Minnesota but at the same time my father had an entirely different promise. He promised that we would never see our mom again. He threatened that he was going to kill us or kill her but he was determined to destroy our mother one way or another and he almost succeeded.

Two months before our departure for the dreaded visit my father he would call our home in Marblehead every Tuesday and Thursday evenings. Sometimes he was friendly. He would ask how our day at school was and he would tell us that he loved us and that he missed us. He would regularly end the conversation by cursing and threatening to kill our mother. When I cried he threatened that if I hung up the phone he would tell the judge that our mom wouldn't let us talk to him and then he could take us away from her.

So I would stand there in my soft cotton white nightgown with pink roses, staring out at the clock on the steeple of Abbot hall listening to words and scenarios that would inspire nightmares in grown men. Sometimes my father would shout "tell her... tell her now!" I remember standing there with one barefoot rubbing the other. "Tell her!" he'd holler "Or I will come down there now!" I could barely get out the words through my tears "Mommy he says he's gonna’ kill you again!"

"How can he keep doing this?" she screamed and fell to the ground by my feet, crushing one of my toes. I stood there looking at my crumpled mother on the floor, listening to my father's violent words in my ears, wondering when would be a good time to pull my little foot out from underneath my mom.

Things became more confusing when I once saw my 9 year old brother throw one of his new toys on the floor. I wondered why he would break one of his favorite toys. I felt abandoned when my mom got up and went to my brother and hugged him. I felt bad for him because he was standing there with tears running down his face holding the toy he just broke. My mom didn't even get mad at him. She hugged him and comforted him but I felt like I was left alone in the grips of a monster.
“Mommy” I squealed just to make sure that she wouldn’t forget about me. Of course she came running, almost tripping over my brother as she dragged him under her arm. She ducked her head to peek through the living room window of our second story apartment to the clock on the steeple of the town hall. The big hand was nearly approaching the 3 but it wasn't time yet. Our mother wasn't allowed to take the phone away from us anymore, even when our father was swearing at us and threatening to kill us or her. My mom whispered for my brother to take the phone and I buried myself in her lap. I would routinely put my hands over my ears so I wouldn't have to hear my father's threats to my beloved brother.

A few minutes later mommy whispered "Okay it's time." My brother blurted out "Its 8:15 -bye" and he hung up the phone and let loose like it was going to bite him. Our mommy had a standard regiment of apologizing for our father and for her inability to protect us from him. She would chant over and over again "It's okay... you are safe now." Eventually our sobs would subside and I would dare to open my eyes. I would search for a view of the town clock to be reminded that it would past bedtime and I would stare at it wondering how much longer mommy would let us stay up for extra hugs and cuddles.

The calls kept coming twice a week. The death threats continued and the old clock on the steeple of the town hall became our savior. The minute when the 'big hand reaches the three" we were allowed to break free from our father's verbal abuse. Despite the biweekly tirades we received from our father we loved life in Marblehead.
Marblehead was good to us. The very day we moved into Marblehead the local paper showed up unexpectedly taking photos and welcoming us to our new life without violence. Our mom began smiling, laughing, making jokes and making friends. We didn't have a lot of money but our mom was resourceful. She would buy material that was on sale and make matching mother and daughter dresses and even matching shorts for my brother.

One of the boutique owners across the street from our house marveled over our outfits. She made an agreement with our mom that our mom would make dresses to sell in the store and we would be able to keep the extra beautiful fabric for ourselves. I had the nicest dresses from the whole school. Sometimes my mom would even receive a cash bonus and she would take us directly to the ice cream shop or the pizzeria on the corner.
Our mom had also created her own healing plan for us. After school we walked to the waters edge every day. We gathered stones and then we assigned them the name of something that was bothering us and then pitch them one by one into the ocean. "I didn't like it when my dad kicked me in the head." I don't like it when my dad hits me." I am afraid when my dad says that he will kill my mommy."

Each time my brother and I dared more and more. Sometimes I would hesitate and look at my mother and wonder if I really dared to mention the times my father would suffocate us. I didn't want to hurt her but I was in the process of purging. I felt bad for her when my brother once said "I don't like it when mom doesn't protect us." For a while our confessions escalated and we confessed all of the horrible things our father did to us but eventually we ran out of horror stories and made normal kid complaints like "I don't like going to bed early." And "I don't like eating vegetables."

Life in Marblehead was peaceful and the happiest I had ever been in my young life. Once we had found safety it was unimaginable that we would have to go alone with our abusive father again. I am grateful that we had that time to heal and that I have fond memories of my childhood but it made it all that more painful when the judge reversed custody to our father citing that our mom was interfering in our relationship with the man who beat us. I lost everything that day; my home, my bedroom, my dog, my town my mom and whatever self confidence I had.

After 18 months of begging our mom to rescue us and court supervisors ignoring our bruised and battered little bodies, my brother and I ran away from our fathers house and met our mom at the local video store. I begged my mom to take us back to our home in Marblehead but she told us that it wasn't our