Profiling Child Sexualabusers

Legal Considerations

James M. Peters, William Murphy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Behavioral scientists have been presented as expert witnesses in child sexual abuse cases to testify that known child molesters perform differently on psychological tests than persons who do not molest children. Such testimony has been offered in a wide range of cases ranging from family court to the criminal arena, both for and against the accused. For a variety of reasons, appellate courts across the country have almost universally rejected this type of evidence, SAGE Periodicals Press. This article summarizes the case law on both sides of the issue and concludes that evidence regarding the supposed psychological profile of a child molester has no place in the courtroom. This article provides a brief summary of legal thought regarding the general admissibility of scientific evidence and then reviews published cases organized by the major legal underpinnings of each case. The analysis in this article is limited to laws within the United States and may not apply to other countries.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)38-53
Number of pages16
JournalCriminal Justice and Behavior
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1992

Fingerprint

Sexual Child Abuse
Psychological Tests
Expert Testimony
evidence
appellate court
family court
accused
case law
testimony
witness
sexual violence
Psychology
expert
human being
Law

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Psychology(all)
  • Law

Cite this

Profiling Child Sexualabusers : Legal Considerations. / Peters, James M.; Murphy, William.

In: Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 19, No. 1, 01.01.1992, p. 38-53.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6e7531cc42da4343a14b31d2868b4afa,
title = "Profiling Child Sexualabusers: Legal Considerations",
abstract = "Behavioral scientists have been presented as expert witnesses in child sexual abuse cases to testify that known child molesters perform differently on psychological tests than persons who do not molest children. Such testimony has been offered in a wide range of cases ranging from family court to the criminal arena, both for and against the accused. For a variety of reasons, appellate courts across the country have almost universally rejected this type of evidence, SAGE Periodicals Press. This article summarizes the case law on both sides of the issue and concludes that evidence regarding the supposed psychological profile of a child molester has no place in the courtroom. This article provides a brief summary of legal thought regarding the general admissibility of scientific evidence and then reviews published cases organized by the major legal underpinnings of each case. The analysis in this article is limited to laws within the United States and may not apply to other countries.",
author = "Peters, {James M.} and William Murphy",
year = "1992",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0093854892019001005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "38--53",
journal = "Criminal Justice and Behavior",
issn = "0093-8548",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Profiling Child Sexualabusers

T2 - Legal Considerations

AU - Peters, James M.

AU - Murphy, William

PY - 1992/1/1

Y1 - 1992/1/1

N2 - Behavioral scientists have been presented as expert witnesses in child sexual abuse cases to testify that known child molesters perform differently on psychological tests than persons who do not molest children. Such testimony has been offered in a wide range of cases ranging from family court to the criminal arena, both for and against the accused. For a variety of reasons, appellate courts across the country have almost universally rejected this type of evidence, SAGE Periodicals Press. This article summarizes the case law on both sides of the issue and concludes that evidence regarding the supposed psychological profile of a child molester has no place in the courtroom. This article provides a brief summary of legal thought regarding the general admissibility of scientific evidence and then reviews published cases organized by the major legal underpinnings of each case. The analysis in this article is limited to laws within the United States and may not apply to other countries.

AB - Behavioral scientists have been presented as expert witnesses in child sexual abuse cases to testify that known child molesters perform differently on psychological tests than persons who do not molest children. Such testimony has been offered in a wide range of cases ranging from family court to the criminal arena, both for and against the accused. For a variety of reasons, appellate courts across the country have almost universally rejected this type of evidence, SAGE Periodicals Press. This article summarizes the case law on both sides of the issue and concludes that evidence regarding the supposed psychological profile of a child molester has no place in the courtroom. This article provides a brief summary of legal thought regarding the general admissibility of scientific evidence and then reviews published cases organized by the major legal underpinnings of each case. The analysis in this article is limited to laws within the United States and may not apply to other countries.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84973746192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84973746192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0093854892019001005

DO - 10.1177/0093854892019001005

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 38

EP - 53

JO - Criminal Justice and Behavior

JF - Criminal Justice and Behavior

SN - 0093-8548

IS - 1

ER -