Criminal Justice and Behavior

This study compares the utility of two measures of psychopathic traits, the Antisocial Features (ANT) scale of the Personality Assessment Inventory and the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R), to predict serious institutional misconduct among incarcerated sex offenders over a 2-year follow-up period. Archival disciplinary data for 58 offenders were classified as major infractions involving physical aggression, verbal aggression/acts of defiance, or nonaggressive offenses. Significant correlations were obtained between both measures of psychopathy and each type of disciplinary offense except physical aggression, the occurrence of which was rare in this sample. Regression analyses indicated that each measure accounted for unique—or incremental—variance in one of the criterion measures. Overall classification accuracy based on standard cut scores was somewhat more positive for ANT than for the PCL-R.

The application of group statistical data to violence risk assessment enjoys strong empirical support. Accordingly, this method has dominated expert testimony regarding future dangerousness at federal capital sentencing trials across the past 5 years. Standards for admissibility of violence risk assessment testimony in federal capital sentencing are being considered but remain ambiguous. Challenges to violence risk assessment testimony in these cases have broadly centered on issues of relevancy and reliability. Corollary questions include when such assessments are sufficiently individualized, whether group data can be generalized across American correctional settings, what scientific evidence supports a given methodology, and how information regarding special conditions of confinement is relevant to risk. Conceptual perspectives and scientific evidence regarding each of these issues are discussed.

This study used a large recidivism data set to develop and validate a multiple models tool for predicting recidivism risk. Consistent with prior research, the authors found that the multiple models tool was more accurate than tools built using the traditional single-model approach. In addition, they demonstrated that the predicted recidivism rates produced by the multiple models tool could be summarized in a usable format consisting of four to five statistically distinct risk classes offering an impressive degree of base-rate dispersion. Given that public protection ranks as a primary focal concern of judges, the authors believe that their results justify renewed attention to the potential uses of actuarial tools within the context of judicial decision making.

This research explored empirical dimensions of sex offender recidivism risk. Study 1 portrayed descriptive statistics and factor structure information concerning actuarial risk instruments and diagnoses derived from a sample of sex offenders being evaluated for civil commitment in Wisconsin. Study 2 used a sample from England and Wales to analyze the relationships between individual risk factors commonly found as items within actuarial scales. Factor structure results from Study 2 conceptually overlapped those found in the first sample, and variables developed from this factor structure predicted sexual reconviction as well. Results from these two studies are discussed in terms of separable components of risk for sexual recidivism and the roles those components may play in processes underlying sexual reoffense.

Risk assessment of stalkers is difficult due to the diversity of stalking-related behaviors and the lack of research. The authors discuss three problems. First, stalking is a form of targeted violence, that is, violence directed at specific people known to the perpetrator. Second, stalking may include acts that are implicitly or indirectly threatening. Third, stalking can persist for many years, even decades. In contrast, most research on violence risk assessment ignores the relationship between victim and perpetrator, defines violence solely in terms of physical harm, and tracks perpetrators for limited time periods. The authors conclude that these problems make it impossible to rely on actuarial approaches when assessing risk for stalking at the present time, although it is possible to use structured professional judgment. They discuss some basic principles that can be used to guide stalking risk assessment within the framework of structured professional judgment.

The rationale for this article was to outline and describe an emerging model of prevention-based violence risk assessment and management and to discuss attendant clinical and research implications. This model draws on structured professional judgment rather than on actuarial prediction or unstructured clinical prediction. Its purpose is to prevent violence through the assessment of relevant violence risk factors and the application of risk management and intervention strategies that flow directly from these factors. The authors discuss the nature of the clinical tasks that stem from the model as well as a four-step validation procedure required to evaluate it.

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.