Men's Rights Colorado

« More »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 27, 2009, 1:41pm

Men's Rights Colorado :: Social Services :: Note the tricks, clean as well as dirty used by the SS :: More

Author

Topic: More (Read 47 times)

Patrick Patriot
Administrator

member is offline

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 88

More
« Thread Started on Jun 6, 2005, 7:55pm »

This is a huge legal article, with citation, and definitions. Probably the most damaging tool that can be used to fight pseudo science. It is very long, so only partial portions are posted, along with the links.

Evidence of Penile Plethysmography,
Psychological Profiles, Inventories and
Other "Not a Pedophile" Character and
Opinion Evidence Offered on Behalf
of a Defendant in a Child Sexual Abuse
Case is Inadmissible Under
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical

By Susan K. Smith, Atty.*
Copyright ©1998 Susan K. Smith, Atty. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract: The memorandum reviews the standard of admissibility for scientific evidence as set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and adopted in State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 698 A.2d 739 (1997). The memorandum reviews the evidence offered by the defendant in a civil child sexual abuse and argues that the defense expert's conclusions that the defendant is "not a pedophile" based on the results of a sexual behaviors assessment is inadmissible under Daubert. The author argues that the evidence should be excluded either due to a lack of scientific reliability of the tests in the diagnostic context (penile plethysmography), or for a failure to meet Daubert's "fit" requirement (i.e. MMPI-2 might be scientifically valid but lacks correlation to diagnosis of pedophilia). The memorandum quotes the scientific literature extensively and collects the known cases precluding the admission of penile plethysmography evidence in legal proceedings. The author also argues that the evidence should be excluded as impermissible character evidence.

http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/Scientific_Evidence_Brief.html

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Damned when you do. Damned when you don't!

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free

This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
Get Your Own Free Message Boards & Free Forums!