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
-
Action Alert: Registrants and supporters please take this survey on the effects of the registry and your unmet support needs
Source: restorativeactionalliance.org We at the Restorative Action Alliance (RAA) request that registrants and eligible loved ones... -
Guilty by Association: How Our Convictions Affect Our Families
Source: prisonjournalismproject.org 4/15/25 When a person is convicted, it is easy to forget they are more... -
Europe: ETIAS 2026? Start of European Travel Authorization System Delayed Again
Source: natlawreview.com 4/10/25 Implementation of the European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS) has been delayed...
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.