No abstract

Although recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the death penalty (e.g., Atkins v. Virginia, 2002) have renewed interest in mental health issues, one topic that has not received much attention recently is the ongoing use of expert testimony to support claims that defendants represent a "continuing threat to society." In this article, we (a) review prior research relevant to determining the accuracy of clinical predictions that capital defendants will commit future acts of criminal violence; (b) summarize new data from current and former death row inmates in Texas that bolster the claim that such predictions are gross overestimates of risk; and (c) review extant research addressing the potential utility of various risk assessment instruments that increasingly are being used to reinforce clinical predictions in capital trials. Despite significant recent advances in the field of risk assessment, clinical assertions that a defendant is likely to commit future violent acts appear to be highly inaccurate and ethically questionable at best. Moreover, available research offers little support for the claim that the accuracy of these predictions will be appreciably improved by relying on more structured risk assessment measures that have some demonstrated predictive validity in other contexts.

Psychopathy has gained increasing importance in the field of risk assessment in the last decade, in large part because of the established association between this construct and future violence and criminality. Situations in which the prediction of “future dangerousness” is at issue appear to be logical areas in which the assessment of psychopathic traits would be relevant to decision-making. One recent application of psychopathy has been its inclusion in death penalty cases, wherein Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) scores have been introduced to support the position that a defendant will represent a “continuing threat” to society—even if serving a life sentence in prison. Despite such claims, a review of the relevant research indicates that the empirical basis for these conclusions is minimal at present. This article summarizes what is known about the relationship between psychopathy and violence, and reviews the legal and professional implications of this research in relation to the use of the PCL-R in the penalty phase of capital cases.

Because of the rising frequency and severity of violence in prison populations, quick and accurate screening of aggressiveness is vital. The Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) is a 29-item self-report measure of aggression. Bryant and Smith proposed a refined 12-item, fourfactor version with superior psychometric qualities; however, Williams, Boyd, Cascardi, and Poythress found a different factor structure among jail detainees than is usually found with nonoffenders. The current study used confirmatory factor analyses with data from mentally ill male offenders in a state prison to examine several previously proposed models for the BPAQ. Results confirmed the four-factor structure, the factorial invariance across populations, and supported the use of a modified 12-item refined BPAQ with this prison population.

Managing career inmates (e.g., capital murderers) is a serious burden for prison administrators and taxpayers. Research findings are mixed as to whether such inmates will engage in increased levels of institutional misconduct. Using complete disciplinary histories from non-death-sentenced capital inmates in Texas whose offenses occurred between 1987 and 1994, the authors explored the need for increased security levels between capital murderers sentenced to markedly different parole eligibility policies (15 years vs. 35 to 40 years before becoming eligible for parole). They also explored whether career inmates represent greater management challenges because they have “nothing to lose,” compared with capital inmates with less time to parole eligibility. Findings suggest that capital inmates sentenced to longer mandatory prison terms are less likely to engage in serious and violent misconduct. Policy implications are discussed in terms of prison administration, fiscal practicability, and career inmate social development.