New Study Points to Unreliability of Future Dangerousness Predictions in Texas

A new study con­duct­ed by the Texas Defender Service and Professor John Edens of Sam Houston State University found that state pre­dic­tions of the future dan­ger­ous­ness of cap­i­tal defen­dants were gross­ly inac­cu­rate. The review exam­ined the cas­es of 155 inmates in which pros­e­cu­tion expert wit­ness­es had pre­dict­ed the inmate would be a future dan­ger to soci­ety and in which the state asked for the death penal­ty. However, only 8 (5%) of these inmates lat­er engaged in any seri­ous­ly assaultive behav­ior result­ing in an injury requir­ing treat­ment of more than first-aid. Thirty-one of the 155 inmates (20%) had no records reflect­ing any dis­ci­pli­nary vio­la­tions. The remain­ing 75% of inmates com­mit­ted less gre­vi­ous dis­ci­pli­nary infrac­tions involv­ing con­duct short of seri­ous assaults, includ­ing minor infrac­tions such as pos­sess­ing cash or lot­to tick­ets, food in their cells, or too many sheets. None of the inmates in the study com­mit­ted anoth­er homi­cide, and only two inmates have been pros­e­cut­ed for crimes com­mit­ted while in prison. One was exon­er­at­ed by the courts and freed from death row. 

The study, ​“Deadly Speculation: Misleading Texas Capital Juries with False Predictions of Future Dangerousness,” was pre­pared by the Texas Defender Service, a non-prof­it law firm involved in cap­i­tal lit­i­ga­tion, and Dr. John Edens, a psy­chol­o­gist and pro­fes­sor at Sam Houston State University. ​“There are strong rea­sons to ques­tion the accu­ra­cy of pre­dic­tions of vio­lence made by pros­e­cu­tion experts in cap­i­tal mur­der tri­als. It seems impos­si­ble to rec­on­cile the glar­ing inac­cu­ra­cy of the pre­dic­tions made by these experts with the require­ment that death sen­tences be met­ed out in a non-capri­cious man­ner. It is incum­bent on men­tal health experts to avoid engag­ing in fraud­u­lent tes­ti­mo­ny that is lack­ing in any mean­ing­ful sci­en­tif­ic foun­da­tion,” Dr. Edens not­ed. Texas is one of only two states that allows ​“future dan­ger­ous­ness” to play the crit­i­cal role in whether an indi­vid­ual receives a death sen­tence, despite the fact that the prac­tice is reject­ed by the psy­chi­atric expert com­mu­ni­ty as unre­li­able. (Texas Defender Service Press Release, March 31, 2004)