Show Summary Details
Page of

(p. 97) Federal Sentencing 

(p. 97) Federal Sentencing
(p. 97) Federal Sentencing

Kirk Heilbrun

, David DeMatteo

, Stephanie Brooks Holliday

, and Casey LaDuke

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY ONLINE ( © Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Clinical Psychology Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 22 January 2021

This chapter includes two case reports on federal sentencing. FMHA for federal sentencing is guided by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual, discussed in detail in this chapter. However, in some cases an attorney may request a broader evaluation of factors that influence risk and treatment/rehabilitation needs generally. This kind of referral is demonstrated in the first case, whose principle emphasizes the need to describe evaluation findings in terms of their strengths and weaknesses so that they will need to change little under cross-examination. The principle associated with the second case in this chapter discusses the use of scientific reasoning in FMHA, specifically the importance of hypothesisformulation and testing, falsifiability, parsimony in interpretation, awareness of the limits on accuracy, and the applicability of nomothetic research to FMHA.

Access to the complete content on Oxford Clinical Psychology requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.