Integrating base rate data in violence risk assessments at capital sentencing

Abstract

Prediction of violence in capital sentencing has been controversial. In the absence of a scientific basis for risk assessment, mental health professionals offering opinions in the capital sentencing context are prone to errors. Actuarial or group statistical data, known as base rates, have proven far superior to other methods for reducing predictive errors in many contexts, including risk assessment. Actuarial follow‐up data on violent recidivism of capital murderers in prison and post release have been compiled and analyzed to demonstrate available base rates for use by mental health experts conducting risk assessments pertaining to capital sentencing. This paper also reviews various methods for individualizing the application of base rates to specific cases. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Testing the predictive validity of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) in relation to inmate misconduct and violence.

“…The follow-up observation period, time at risk, ranged from 6 months to over 8 years with a mean of 2.2 years ( SD = 1.8). Consistent with prior studies examining base rates of institutional misconduct, the base rates became progressively lower as the severity of the infraction increased (Cunningham & Reidy, 1998; Cunningham et al, 2008; Cunningham & Sorensen, 2007; Sorensen & Cunningham, 2007, 2010). Over half of the sample committed at least one disciplinary infraction during the observation period, but the prevalence decreased to 16.4% for assaults and 10.7% for serious Level 1 infractions.…”

Conviction Offense and Prison Violence

“…A number of factors were variously associated with an increased or decreased incidence of violent prison misconduct among the FDOC stock population. Consistent with other research (see Cunningham & Reidy, 1998;Goetting & Howsen, 1986;Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1989;Wooldredge et al, 2001), age of the inmate was associated with monotonically decreasing rates of violent prison misconduct. Also consistent with prior research, prior prison commitment (see and gang membership (see Sorensen & Pilgrim, 2000) were associated with an increase in risk of violent misconduct.…”

Future Dangerousness Revisited

“…They are murder, rape, rioting, hostage taking, aggravated assault, escape, arson, and weapons possession. Unfortunately, there is no scholarly consensus about which offenses underlain future dangerousness; however, the current violations are similar to those from earlier studies (e.g., Cao, Zhao, & Van Dine, 1997;Cunningham & Reidy, 1998;Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996;Reidy et al, 2001). Violent prison violations (mean = 0.98, SD = 2.57, range = 0-26) were summed to provide adequate variation for quantitative analyses.…”

“…Inmates serving determinate sentences were neither more nor less involved in serious misconduct than their peers serving more punitive sanctions. That persons sentenced to death will continue to engage in serious and violent crime while incarcerated is fully consistent with the future dangerousness doctrine and thereby directly in opposition to the extant literature (Cunningham & Reidy, 1998Cunningham & Vigen, 2002;Reidy et al, 2001;Sorensen & Pilgrim, 2001;Sorensen & Wrinkle, 1996), which has consistently found, through retrospective analyses, that condemned offenders generally did not pose risks for future violent offending.…”