Great Analysis, But Problematic Assumptions: A Critique of Janus and Meehl (1997)

Great Analysis, But Problematic Assumptions: A Critique of Janus and Meehl (1997) Janus and Meehl (Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (1997), 3(1), 33–64) employed a sophisticated analysis to discover what is the actual standard that judges use in determining which sex offenders meet criteria for a civil commitment within the purviews of “sexual predator” laws. Their analysis relied on various assumptions, most of which were specified and explicated by the authors. They concluded that the judiciary does not even approach meeting the standards that it sets for itself when it comes to adjudicating the threshold for these types of commitments. Two of the fundamental underlying assumptions within their analysis may be seriously flawed, however. Using current information related to either of these assumptions, without changing any other aspect of the analysis, the ultimate finding concerning the judiciary standard would actually be reversed from what Janus and Meehl concluded. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment Springer Journals

Great Analysis, But Problematic Assumptions: A Critique of Janus and Meehl (1997)

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/great-analysis-but-problematic-assumptions-a-critique-of-janus-and-B6CqIqbi7z
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by Plenum Publishing Corporation
Subject
Psychology; Sexual Behavior; Psychiatry; Clinical Psychology; Criminology and Criminal Justice, general
ISSN
1079-0632
eISSN
1573-286X
D.O.I.
10.1023/A:1009514429496
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Janus and Meehl (Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (1997), 3(1), 33–64) employed a sophisticated analysis to discover what is the actual standard that judges use in determining which sex offenders meet criteria for a civil commitment within the purviews of “sexual predator” laws. Their analysis relied on various assumptions, most of which were specified and explicated by the authors. They concluded that the judiciary does not even approach meeting the standards that it sets for itself when it comes to adjudicating the threshold for these types of commitments. Two of the fundamental underlying assumptions within their analysis may be seriously flawed, however. Using current information related to either of these assumptions, without changing any other aspect of the analysis, the ultimate finding concerning the judiciary standard would actually be reversed from what Janus and Meehl concluded.

Journal

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and TreatmentSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 16, 2004

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off