Prediction Of Future Dangerousness Research Articles

Danger at the Edge of Chaos: Predicting Violent Behavior in a Post-Daubert World

This interdisciplinary article explores the boundaries of predicting violence in the context of capital sentencing decisions. Currently, experts are permitted to proffer opinions in death sentencing proceedings that have little grounding in science, without any examination of the scientific validity of their assertions. They are permitted to do so because, despite being widely castigated as wholly unscientific by the scientific community, predictions of future dangerousness were found to be constitutionally admissible in Barefoot v. Estelle. Standards for evaluating expert testimony have changed considerably since Barefoot, however. The Supreme Court, through its Daubert line of cases, has caused a paradigm shift in the evaluation of scientific evidence in both state and federal courts. The kind of unscientific predictions proffered in Barefoot continue nonetheless to be routinely admitted in sentencing proceedings without any judicial gatekeeping efforts. The tension between the scientific scrutiny required for admissibility even in civil cases (where money damages are at stake) and the unscientific predictions freely admissible in capital sentencing determinations (where the issue is death) is, at best, troubling. This article explores the validity of dangerousness predictions in light of the latest scientific research about brain structure and function. It also discusses the development of actuarial instruments to assess risk, and compares three predominant actuarial instruments. Based on criteria scientists themselves use to assess validity, as well as the Supreme Court's requirements in Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire, this article outlines a framework for sound analysis of scientific evidence regarding predictions of future violence. Drawing on insights from brain science as well as complexity theory and empirical studies of jury decisionmaking, this article concludes that although actuarial instruments should be used with caution, they offer improvements over the unaided judgment of juries and over the kind of unscientific assertions about future dangerousness currently typical in capital sentencing proceedings. This is an important and timely issue, because the consequences of misleading the jury in a death sentencing determination are severe, not only for the defendant, but for a society that values justice and aspires to rationality.

Psychological evaluations in the criminal justice system: Basic principles and best practices

Forensic psychologists are frequently called upon to conduct evaluations for competency to stand trial, insanity defense, or prediction of future dangerousness. Psychological evaluations for the court typically include record review, clinical examination of the defendant, interview of collaterals, psychological testing, and preparation of a written report. Psychological forensic examiners may also be called upon to testify in court. In rendering their conclusions, forensic examiners should conduct a careful analysis of each individual case, not rely on the mere presence, absence, or severity of any mental disorder to make a legal determination.

Secondary analysis of dangerousness among death sentenced capital murderers

The theory of incapacitation involves reducing an offender's ability or capacity to commit further crimes. Capital punishment accomplishes this goal. An executed murderer never murders again. However, we do not execute all murderers, only capital murderers. This policy produces several research questions. Do capital murderers present a special risk to society? Are capital murderers more likely to murder or commit other violent crimes again than other murderers or the average citizen? To answer these questions, many states require a prediction of future dangerousness of a newly convicted murderer. To what extent has the judgment of future dangerousness matched actuarial data of subsequent murders and serious crimes? Using a secondary analysis, this investigation attempted to assemble available data of postconviction dangerousness of death sentenced capital murderers to create a more comprehensive actuarial account of subsequent dangerousness and to present the data in a common format used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Across 14 studies identified with relevant data, there were 13 instances of subsequent murder and 462 serious crime or prison rule violations.

An examination of the assumptions of specialization, mental disorder, and dangerousness in sex offenders.

Sex offenders have been singled out for differential treatment by the legal and mental health systems. This article attempts to inform law reform efforts and criminal justice mental health policy by examining the assumptions underlying differential legal and mental health treatment of sex offenders. These assumptions include the theories that sex offenders are mentally disordered and in need of treatment, specialists in sex crimes, and more dangerous than other criminal offenders. Empirical findings demonstrate that sex offenders are not specialists in sex crimes and are not mentally disordered. Examination of past research suggests that sex offenders are not at more risk than other criminal offenders to commit future sex crimes. Implications of research findings for selective prosecution of sex crime cases, mental health policy, sex offender legislation, and predictions of future dangerousness are discussed. Proposals for future research needs and law reform are presented.

Accuracy of Psychologists' Short-Term Predictions of Future Criminal Behavior Among Juveniles

ABSTRACT This study analyzed the accuracy of predictions of criminality as a measure of future violent behavior by two psychologists at a juvenile correctional facility. The purpose of the study was to look at how effectively predictions of future dangerousness could be made under certain conditions. While other studies have looked at how accurately predictions of violence could be made for large populations, this study looked at whether a subgroup within a general population could accurately be labeled as very likely to reoffend violently. A comparison between the accuracy of the psychologists* prediction of future dangerousness and a sample of the institution population was made. The results indicated that the psychologists accurately identified a subpopulation significantly more likely to engage in future acts of violence within a one-year follow-up period and were able to select a group significantly more likely to reofTend than the general population.

Criminal Justice Implications of the Macho Personality Constellation

This article outlines a script theory of macho personality and discusses its potential forensic application in the understanding of criminal behavior, the prediction of future dangerousness, and the treatment of male offenders. The macho personality constellation consists of the view of violence as manly, the view of danger as exciting, callous sexuality toward women, and toughness as self-control. Research using the Hypermasculinity Inventory, developed to operationalize the macho personality construct, indicates that macho men are more likely to act violently toward other men, to act violently and callously toward women, and to seek out dangerous situations. Potential areas of criminal justice application include substance abuse, rape and sexual assault, sexual harassment, gang violence, “lust” murders, and abuse of women and children in general.

The Perils of Prediction

Predicting dangerousness is performed by the mental health expert in a variety of settings. Within the medical model the issue is usually imminent dangerousness with the focus on intervention, diagnosis, and possibly treatment. The prediction of future dangerousness, however, is typically an administrative or legal function. The practitioner should be aware of the differences and the consequences of each opinion. This article examines the controversy of future dangerousness and argues for a more thorough evaluation and a frank disclosure of the inevitable limitations of forecasting.

Alternatives in Psychiatric Testimony on Dangerousness

Abstract In the District of Columbia, as in many state jurisdictions, psychiatrists are likely to encounter the issue of testifying in a court regarding their “predictions of future dangerousness” in two situations: (a) during the process of involuntary civil commitment or commitment after a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity in a criminal case and (b) upon petition for a conditional or unconditional release after commitment in a criminal case [1ߝ3]. The criteria for civil commitment in the District of Columbia are mental illness and a finding that the mentally ill individual is likely to injure himself or others because of his mental illness [4]. The standard is similar after a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity [5, 6].