Sarah Arensberg Psych 2024 Tyson V. State: 1992

Sarah Arensberg PSYCH 445 March 17, 2024 Tyson v. State: 1992 Introduction to the case in its content area: The American Psychological Association classifies risk assessments as either clinical or actuarial. The former offers a “clinician-based prediction of the likelihood that an individual will pose a threat to others or engage in certain behavior within a given period” (American Psychological Association). These estimations of dangerous or violent behavior are derived from the expert’s personal experiences and judgment, observations and subsequent examinations and individualized testing, and consideration of relevant details in the individual’s life history. This contrasts with the actuarial assessment approach, which utilizes a “specific formula or

Grand jurors deliberated for ten hours before indicting Tyson in a 5-1 vote of guilty as charged, sentencing him to six years at the Plainfield Correctional Center in addition to four years of probation (Kerr, 1994). At the trial’s conclusion, Judge Gifford encapsulated the court’s sentiments, stating “the law of Indiana is pretty clear, and it never mentions whether a defendant or a victim are acquainted” (Cancian, 2021). The jury’s decision was guided by the accumulation of evidence throughout the trial; one member stated that “we looked not only at the moment in the bedroom, but at a chain of events that occurred over time during that evening” (Muscatine, 1992). The composed college freshman withstood six hours of interrogation on the stand, and maintained that Tyson deceived her by veiling their journey to the room as a quick trip to retrieve an item (Muscatine, 1992). In contrast, Tyson appeared less credible, at one point contradicting himself and reporting he directly asked to have sex with Washington, and failed to provide a credible witness to support his claims (Muscatine,