Future Facts Flashcards
Georgia Pardons and Paroles
a. Scoresheet
i. Number of felony convictions
ii. Number of prior prison incarcerations
iii. Current prison sentence offenses
iv. Age
v. History of alcohol/drug abuse
vi. Employed at time of current arrest
COMPAS (Wisconsin)
Wisconsin v. Loomis
i. Gender can be an issue in scoring
ii. COMPAS based on group data; effective in predicting groups but not individuals
Brown v. Plata
a. Rule: A court may impose limits on the overcrowding of prisons to remedy a violation of prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights
b. Violent crimes went down after the original CA decision to limit prison population
i. CA Static Risk Assessment (CSRA)
Sex Offenders
Kendrick v. Hendricks
Rule: A state law providing for the involuntary civil commitment of persons whose mental abnormality makes them likely to commit acts of sexual violence does not create a criminal proceeding and is therefore not subject to the Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clauses. (J. Thomas)
Sexually Violent Predators Act
a. Score-sheet
b. Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) is evaluated by committee
i. Can be civilly committed following prison
Barefoot v. Estelle
i. Psychiatric testimony about defendant’s future dangerousness is admissible
ii. Would it pass Daubert?
1) No one cares
2) Passes VMI test (Gender)
State v. Davis
Court retains discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its unfounded character
Tarasoff
a. Establishes duty to warn for (therapist)psychiatrists/psychologists with a special relationship if threat is foreseeable to identified victim
i. Poddar identified Tarasoff as future victim to therapist
1) Must use “reasonable standard” to take steps to mitigate: call cops, warn victim, warn victim’s family, etc.
2) Protective privilege ends where public peril begins
a) Concern among therapists about protecting privacy of clients; breach of trust; affects ability to treat patients
b. Civil Code CA &43.92
Therapists duty to warn of threatened violent behavior of patient; immunity from monetary liability
Thompson
a. Liability in juvenile justice system
i. No affirmative duty to warn for a non-specific threat to non-specific victim
1) Not foreseeable
2) Danger of targeting innocent people
ii. But Tarasoff extends to juvenile system in case of named victim
No general duty to warn for adult system; (with all the recidivism, states would be liable for tons of incidents)
Brady v. Hopper (Hinckley case)
a. No duty to warn because there was no special relationship
b. Used Thompson standard, not Tarasoff
Hopewell v. Adebimpe
a. PA case that says Tarasoff doesn’t apply nationally
b. Therapist liable for sending a warning letter to potential victim
