Transcending the Actuarial Versus Clinical Polemic in Assessing Risk for Violence

Abstract

Much energy has been expended over recent years in debating the relative merits of actuarial versus clinical approaches to violence risk prediction. Although it has gradually become apparent that scores based on more or less static factors obtainable from the record do indeed associate with outcome violence over years of follow-up, there is no reason to suppose that, at least potentially, dynamic variables do not hold as much or more promise when it comes to projections over weeks or months. Clinicians involved in release decision-making might wish to consider the following, in order of importance: (a) the legal framework within which the decision is being made, (b) the thoroughness with which scientific methods have been applied to the particular case at issue, (c) the precision of the individualized statement of violence risk being offered, (d) the steps which could be taken to reduce that risk, and (e) if available, the individual's violence risk assessment score in relation to already amassed pertinent statistical data.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashford, J. B. , Sales, B. D. , & Reid, W. H. (Eds.). (2001). Treating adult and juvenile offenders withspecial needs. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Brown, M . (2000). Calculations of risk in contemporary penal practice. In M. Brown & J. Pratt (Eds.), Dangerous offenders: Punishment and social order (pp. 93-108). London: Routledge.

Cordess, C. (2001). Forensic psychotherapy. In C. Hollin (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 309-329). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Dietz, P. E. (1985). Hypothetical criteria for the prediction of individual criminality. In C. D. Webster , M. H. Ben-Aron , & S. J. Hucker (Eds.), Dangerousness: Probability and prediction, psychiatry and public policy (pp. 87-102). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dvoskin, J. A. , & Heilbrun, K. (2001). Risk assessment and release decision-making: Toward resolving the great debate. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 29, 6-10.

Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16, 319-324.

Heilbrun, K. (1997). Prediction versus management models relevant to risk assessment: The importance of legal decision-making context. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 347-359.

Hilton, N. Z. , & Simmons, J. L. (2001). The influence of actuarial risk assessment in clinical judgments and tribunal decisions about mentally disordered offenders in maximum security. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 393-408.

Hirschmann, D. (1996). Parole and the dangerous offender. In N. Walker (Ed.), Dangerous people (pp. 137-153). London: Blackstone.

10.

Hollin, C. R. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of offender assessment and treatment. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

11.

Krause, M. S. , Howard, K. I. , & Lutz, W. (1998). Exploring individual change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 838-845.

12.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

13.

Lehman, A. F. , & Steinwachs, D. M. (1998). At issue: Translating research into practice: The schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) treatment recommendations. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 24, 1-10.

14.

Litwack, T. R. (2001) Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7, 409-443.

15.

Loeber, R. , & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2001). Child delinquents: Development, interventions, and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22-54.

17.

Medawar, P. B. (1967). The art of the soluble. London: Methuen.

18.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.

19.

Monahan, J. , Steadman, H. J. , Silver, E. , Appelbaum, P. S. , Robbins, P. C. , Mulvey, E. P. , et al. (2001). Rethinking risk assessment: The Macarthur study of mental disorder and violence. New York: Oxford University Press.

20.

Nuffield, J. (1982). Parole decision-making in Canada: Researchtowards decision guidelines. Ottawa: Ministry of Supplies and Services, Canada.

21.

Quinsey, V. L. , Harris, G. T. , Rice, M. E. , & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

22.

Stone, A. A. (1985). The new legal standard of dangerousness: Fair in theory, unfair in practice. In C. D. Webster , M. H. Ben-Aron , & S. H. Hucker (Eds.), Dangerousness: Probability and prediction, psychiatry and public policy (pp. 13-24). New York: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Webster, C. D. (1980). The old torments: How to defeat the colloquium speaker (or toward good theory and research in experimental-clinical psychology). Canadian Psychologist, 21, 90-92.

24.

Webster, C. D. (1990). Prediction of dangerousness polemic. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 191-196.

25.

Webster, C. D. , Harris, G. T. , Rice, M. E. , Cormier, C. , & Quinsey, V. L. (1994). The violence prediction scheme: Assessing dangerousness in high risk men. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, Centre of Criminology.

26.

Witt, P. H. , Del Russo, J. , Oppenheim, J. , & Ferguson, G. (1997). Sex offender risk assessment and the law. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 24, 343-378.