2004 Annual Reports for Boards and Committees

COMMITTEE ON LEGAL ISSUES

MISSION

COLI is an ad hoc Committee that reports through the APA Board of Directors while maintaining a close working relationship with APA's General Counsel and related staff. The overarching mission of the Committee on Legal Issues is to provide and promote expertise on psycho-legal issues and trends.

MEMBERS

COLI consists of nine APA members with broad expertise and interests in psycho-legal issues. Membership on COLI is on a rotating basis, with members appointed for a three-year term. The members of COLI for 2004 included:

3rd Year Class: Natacha Blain, JD, PhD; Robert T. Kinscherff, JD, PhD; Sandra B. McPherson, PhD
2nd Year Class: Julia M. Ramos-Grenier, PhD; Mark S. Small, PhD, JD; Richard L. Wiener, PhD, MLS
1st Year Class: Daniel A. Krauss, JD, PhD; Randy K. Otto, PhD, MLS; Mark Zelig, PhD

MEETINGS

The Committee convened two meetings in 2004 -- on March 26-27 at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City, VA, in conjunction with the APA Spring Consolidated Meetings, and on November 5-6 at the Marriott Washington Hotel, DC, during the APA Fall Consolidated Meetings.

SUMMARY OF COLI ACTIVITIES

COLI Amicus Review:

COLI reviewed and issued recommendations to the Board of Directors concerning APA involvement as amicus curiae in cases as follows:

1. Roper v. Simmons (US Supreme Court) – this case addresses the constitutionality of the death penalty for juvenile defendants. COLI recommended that APA submit an amicus curiae brief presenting scientific evidence to assist the Court in resolving critical empirical questions relevant to the legal standards governing the death penalty including whether the recognized purposes of the death penalty -- deterrence and retribution—apply to 16 and 17 year olds as a group. The Board approved APA amicus involvement consistent with COLI's recommendation. The brief presents behavioral research on the developmental characteristics of late adolescents, featuring in particular recent studies from the MacArthur Foundation's Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. Recent research addresses characteristics of adolescents such as less mature decision-making, impulsivity, risk-taking, peer orientation, temporal perspective (the extent to which long term and short term consequences are taken into account) and vulnerability to coercion and false confession, all of which would be relevant to the Court in evaluating the constitutionality of the death penalty for this age group. Also addressed is recent relevant MRI research on brain function suggesting that the brain continues to develop through young adulthood in areas that may bear on adolescent decisionmaking. APA asserts that a categorical exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds from the death penalty is warranted based on the research and the fact that assessment of character and likelihood of dangerousness as an adult in the death penalty context cannot be sufficiently reliable to satisfy constitutional standards.

2. Comfort v. Lynn School Committee; Bollen v. Lynn School Committee (US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit) – this case involves a school voluntary desegregation plan in Lynn, Massachusetts that uses race as a factor in assigning children to K-12 schools in the event that they do not want to attend their local neighborhood school and request a transfer. COLI recommended to the Board that APA file a brief in support of the Lynn School Committee and the Board concurred. APA's brief presents social, psychological and developmental research as a backdrop for the court's consideration of the Plan. Central to the discussion is the “Intergroup Contact Hypothesis,” including recent meta-analytic research linking intergroup contact under appropriate conditions with decreased levels of intergroup prejudice. The brief also educates the court concerning some of the processes involved in prejudice and discriminatory behavior, including negative stereotypes, in-group bias, aversive racism, intergroup anxiety, and implicit stereotypes. The relationship between cross-race friendships and reduced prejudice and negative stereotypes in children, and the importance of intergroup contact for the development of children's social and moral reasoning are also included to assist the court's thinking. Finally, the brief discusses the ineffectiveness of several alternatives to the Plan advanced by the appellants related to their argument that integrated classrooms were not necessary.

3. Ewing v. Goldstein (California Supreme Court) – the case addresses review of a decision by the California Court of Appeal that extends California's duty to warn statute from communications from a patient to a therapist to include communications about the patient from a third party. COLI issued recommendations to the Board that APA submit a letter in support of a petition for review as well as an amicus brief should the California Supreme Court accept such review. The Board concurred with COLI's recommendation and a letter supporting the petition for review was filed on APA's behalf addressing 1) the importance of confidentiality and trust in the psychotherapeutic relationship, 2) exceptions to the rule of confidentiality are, by necessity narrow and definitive, and 3) the adverse effects of the Court of Appeal's decision. In summary, APA argued that the Court of Appeal's decision, in ignoring the plain words of the statute and expanding the psychologist's duty to warn and protect others regarding threats reported indirectly from third parties, strikes the balance in a manner that poses unreasonable duties on therapists that will harm the therapeutic process without the justification of a strong compensating benefit based on the unique knowledge and skill of the therapist.

4. Lewis v. Harris (Superior Court of New Jersey) – This case addresses the constitutional challenge to New Jersey's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Board consistent with COLI's recommendation, voted to support APA filing an amicus curiae brief to provide the court with material consistent with APA policy and research APA has provided as amicus in a variety of other cases (e.g., involving parental rights, challenges to sodomy statutes and other GLBT rights issues) as well as addressing invalidities in the research presented by opponents of same-sex marriage. APA's brief provides scientific research that has established that homosexuality is not a disorder or disease, but rather a normal variant of human sexual orientation. The brief states that allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the legal, social, and economic support that already facilitate and strengthen heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and health benefits associated with that support and also end the antigay stigma imposed by the State through its same-sex marriage ban. The brief further states that ending the prohibition on marriage for same-sex partners is in the best interest of the children being raised by lesbian and gay men, and that empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. By contrast, the argument that banning same-sex marriage will encourage gay men and lesbians who wish to conceive and raise children to do so in heterosexual marriage relationships, and that promoting such arrangements is in the best interest of children, is not supported by research or clinical experience. APA's brief concludes that there is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.

Further, COLI and the Board agreed to approve a plan to use the New Jersey brief as a template for filing APA amicus curiae briefs regarding same-sex marriage in other states. Two additional cases were approved for APA amicus involvement during 2004, as follows: Anderson v. King County (Washington) and Li et al. and County of Multnomah v. Oregon (Oregon).

COLI Projects/Initiatives

Facilitating APA/ABA Relations -- The most significant areas of APA/ABA collaboration in 2004, which COLI supported, included, as follows: