Daniel Murrie of the University of Virginia and Marcus Boccaccini at Sam Houston State University presented new research in the Aug. 28, 2013, issue of the journal Psychological Science that indicates that forensic psychologists and psychiatrists provide the group that is paying them for their testimony with the evidence that group, prosecution or defense, expects to be best for their case. Full Article
Related posts
-
ID: Idaho governor signs into law child sex abuse death penalty bill, despite U.S. Supreme Court ruling
Source: idahocapitalsun.com 3/27/25 Widely supported in the Idaho Legislature, the bill is likely to face a... -
MO: Missouri Files Final Brief in Halloween Sign Challenge
Source: ACSOL The State of Missouri filed its final brief today in the pending federal case... -
GA: Georgia Suggests Making Sex Offender Registry Removal More Confusing
Source: filtermag.org 3/27/25 Georgia is weighing legislation that would make it more difficult for people on...
This is not new news. Every few years this fact is pointed out by and individual or group and nothing is ever done about it. Then it is forgotten about for a few years until someone else comes up with the same conclusion. It’s common sense that this would be the case with “experts” hired by groups or the courts. If a group that favors something (such as the ever popular and seemingly endless laws affecting people on the registry) and hires an “expert” you can bet the study will be biased in favor of the person or group paying for the study and will not have considered all of the facts. These so called “experts do much harm. Just ask any cop or citizen about people on the registry and you will hear an endless stream of misinformation,misconceptions and outright lies based on these biased studies by some “expert.” It’s sickening.