Dangerousness and Expertise

Abstract

(1981) (discussing constitutional limitations upon the use of expert testimony to address the issue of dangerousness in the capital sentencing context). 8 Clinical predictions are made by mental health professionals using traditional interviewing and history-taking techniques. See infra text accompanying note 47 for a more detailed definition. 9 Actuarial data are statistically combined to show the numerical probability that persons with certain characteristics will act in a certain way. "Hard" data, as opposed to "soft" data, are easily scored variables such as age, sex, or prior arrests. See infra text accompanying notes 48-49 for a more detailed definition. 10 The phrase "dangerousness to self" or its equivalent is found in all civil coin-1002 (1983); TEX. CODE CRIM. PRoc. art. 46.01 (Vernon 1979); VA. CODE § 19.2-181 (Supp. 1984). 13 The term "noncapital sentencing" is meant to encompass only the initial sentencing proceeding, not parole decisions. Many states have "special track" sentencing statutes that explicitly permit the sentencing authority to consider expert testimony on dangerousness in order to determine who falls within the terms of the statute. See generally G. Dix, SPECIAL DISPOSITIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR ABNORMAL OFFENDERS: DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW 212 (1981). The most prominent of these special track laws are the so-called sexual psychopath laws. See generally GROUP FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, PSYCHIATRY AND SEX PSYCHOPATH LEGISLATION: THE 30S TO THE 80s, at 842-60 (1977). Although these statutes have recently come into disrepute, see, e.g., Guthman, MDSO Law: The Assumptions Challenged, 4 CRIM. JUST. J. 75 (1980), 17 of the 30-plus states that originally enacted them still have at least a modified version on the books. AMERICAN BAR ASS'N, CRIMINAL JUSTICE MENTAL HEALTH STANDARDS § 7-8.1 (First Tent. Draft 1983) [hereinafter cited as MENTAL HEALTH STANDARDS]. These statutes should be distinguished from habitual offender laws, which provide for enhanced punishment of those who have committed multiple offenses but which are not based on dangerousness assessments per se. See, e.g., S.D. CODIFIED LAWS ANN. § 22-7-8 (1979) (amended 1981). Although there often is no specific statutory authorization for considering expert testimony on dangerousness in non-special track sentencing, such testimony occurs frequently.

Predictive Efficacy and the Preventive Detention of Dangerous Sexual Offenders: Contributions from Nonlinear Dynamical Systems Theory

“…An even stronger link has been suggested when individuals manifest indicators of psychopathy (characterized, amongst other things, by lack of remorse and empathy) (Serin and Amos 1995). An individual's score on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), for instance, is a central variable on the VRAG and other actuarial measures (Slobogin 2006). Even absent a formal diagnosis, certain personality characteristics such as impulsiveness and hostility are thought to be related to violent behavioral tendencies (e.g., Louw et al 2005).…”

“…Experts on human behavior have for years sought to identify factors that would allow for the accurate prediction of violent behavior (see, e.g., Andrews and Bonta 2003 for a history). In many criminal justice contexts, predictions of future violent behavior are lay judgments made by police officers, probation officers, members of parole boards, and judges that factor into decisions concerning bail, noncapital sentencing (e.g., probation versus incarceration), and parole (Slobogin 2006). In other scenarios, ''experts'' drawn from the behavior or mental health sciences are employed to directly assist in civil and criminal justice decision-making through assessments of propensity toward violent behavioral outcomes.…”

Race, Prediction, and Pretrial Detention

“…A few scholars have discussed the appropriateness of considering race or prior criminal history when predicting recidivism and future crime. More specifically, Christopher Slobogin acknowledges that many expert predictions of dangerousness—both clinical and actuarial in nature—take factors such as race, gender, and age into account (Slobogin ). In response to the anticipated concerns raised about impermissible discrimination, Slobogin points out that suspect classifications are constitutional if they withstand strict scrutiny; that is, if they further a compelling government interest.…”

Violence risk: Re-defining variables from the first-person perspective

“…Advances in violence risk assessment over the past 25 years have led to the development of actuarial instruments that are more accurate than clinical judgment alone (Gardner et al, 1996; Grove & Meehl, 1996; Hanson, 2005; Harris & Rice, 1997; Heilbrun et al, 1999; Loza & Dhaliwal, 2005; Mossman, 1994; Norko & Baranoski, 2005; Slobogin, 2006). Correlations between ratings on these instruments and future violence range from 0.30 to 0.50 (Webster et al, 1997).…”