Continuing the commentary on the Wilson vs The Supreme Court of Los Angeles, et al we address the question, how do the psychs do what they do.
Nothing scientific at all. It is a subjective, "In my professional opinion...," they say.
In April of 1999, following a petition by the People, Mr. Wilson was evaluated by two psychologists who"concluded Wilson has a mental disorder that makes it likely he will engage in predatory sexual violence if he is released from custody without appropriate treatment."
Is there any shred of evidence presented in that statement that a sane jurist could say that beyond doubt this is data? Not one piece exists. It was the opinion of these "learned" persons only that got him labeled., not a proof positive piece of information that was provable.
Neither of the psychologists was able to say, "this is proof of what will happen." "I conclude" based on my education, my knowledge, my viewpoint, all of which boils down to "my opinion".
Opinion is not evidence and prior to the psychs ingratiating themselves to the courts such statements were not allowed in the courtroom and today are not allowed by anyone else.
Can any reader give a sane, just and acceptable reason for this situation to exist in our justice system, or as some say, injustice system, based on English law? This writer does not know one justifiable reason for this to exist.
Thus, it behooves Americans to look at this situation and decide to return our courts to the position that once existed, no opinions can be admitted in evidence. Then maybe Americans will get justice in their courts.
Of course, this will require the re-education of every judge and attorney to what is truth and what is not acceptable under the guise of truth.
Too much idealism? Not if the people of the country awaken from their stupor of not looking at what actually exist versus what appears to exist. Look for truth and not "my professional opinion".