Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- 28 Amenability to Treatment Evaluations
- 29 Choosing Between Life and Death
- 30 The Communication of Risk to Legal Decision-Makers
- 31 The Psychology of Parole Decision-Making
- 32 Probation Decision-Making
- 33 Decision-Making in Violence Risk Assessment
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
33 - Decision-Making in Violence Risk Assessment
from Part IV - Postconviction Phase Decisions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- 28 Amenability to Treatment Evaluations
- 29 Choosing Between Life and Death
- 30 The Communication of Risk to Legal Decision-Makers
- 31 The Psychology of Parole Decision-Making
- 32 Probation Decision-Making
- 33 Decision-Making in Violence Risk Assessment
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
The literature on violence risk assessment has primarily focused on prescriptive approaches, whereby methods are designed to assess risk to arrive at accurate conceptualizations and decisions regarding future risk. However, we have often failed to think about the underlying decision-making process clinicians exhibit, and especially the decision-making within the limitations of their clinical contexts. Understanding this underlying decision-making process is imperative to maximize the success or accuracy of our prescriptive approaches. The current chapter seeks to review the history of decision-making across the generations of violence risk assessment and identify our primary approaches to risk assessment decision-making, or our prescriptive approaches. We then turn our attention toward the decision-making process itself and focus on the information we use to arrive at our decisions regarding violence risk and the use of this information in clinical practice. Finally, we identify areas of future exploration.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 510 - 522Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Arkes, H. A., Dawes, R. M., & Christensen, C. (1986). Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task. Organizational Performance and Human Decision Processes, 37, 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90046-4.Google Scholar
Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D., Rufino, C., Gardner, K. A., B. O. (2014). Evaluator differences in Psychopathy Checklist-Revised factor and facet scores. Law and Human Behavior, 38(4), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000069.Google Scholar
Brown, B., & Rakow, T. (2015). Understanding clinicians’ use of cues when assessing the future risk of violence: A clinical judgment analysis in the psychiatric setting. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 23, 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1941.Google Scholar
Brunswick, E., (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520350519.Google Scholar
Collins, C., Martin, K., & Marshall, L. (2019). Do review tribunals consider protective factors in decisions about patients found not criminal responsible? Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 30(5), 894–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2019.1650097.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. P., & Werner, P. D. (1990). Predicting violence in newly admitted inmates: A lens model analysis of staff decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(4), 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854890017004004.Google Scholar
Côté, G., Crocker, A. G., Nicholls, T. L., & Seto, M. C. (2012). Risk assessment instruments in clinical practice. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry/La Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie, 57(4), 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371205700407.Google Scholar
Coupland, R. B. A., & Olver, M. E. (2020). Assessing dynamic violence in a high-risk treated sample of violent offenders. Assessment, 27(8), 1886–1900. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118797440.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2648573.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. S., & Belfrage, H. (2015). The structured professional judgment approach to violence risk assessment and management: Why it is useful, how to use it, and its empirical support. In Pietz, C. A. & Mattson, C. A. (Eds.), Violent offenders: Understanding and assessment (pp. 360–383). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. S., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2003). The impact of confidence on the accuracy of structured professional and actuarial violence risk judgments in a sample of forensic psychiatric patients. Law and Human Behavior, 27(6), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:lahu.0000004887.50905.f7.Google Scholar
Duwe, G., & Rocque, M. (2018). The home-field advantage and the perils of professional judgment: Evaluating the performance of the Static-99 R and the MnSOST-3 in predicting sexual recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 42(3), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000277.Google Scholar
Elbogen, E. B. (2016). The process and context of violence risk assessment. In Singh, J. P., Bjørkly, S., and Fazel, S. (Eds.), International perspectives on violence risk assessment (pp. 53–75). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199386291.003.0005.Google Scholar
Elbogen, E. B., Huss, M. T., Tomkins, A. J., & Scalora, M. J. (2005). Clinical decision making about psychopathy and violence risk assessment in public sector mental health settings. Psychological Services, 2(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/1541-1559.2.2.133.Google Scholar
Elbogen, E. B., Mercado, C. C., Scalora, M. J., & Tomkins, A. J., (2002). Perceived relevance of factors for violence risk assessment: A survey of clinicians. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2002.10471159.Google Scholar
Elbogen, E. B., Williams, A. L., Kim, D., Tomkins, A. J., & Scalora, M. J. (2001). Gender and perceptions of dangerousness in civil psychiatric patients. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532501168299.Google Scholar
Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rawson, K., Beach, C. A. (2005). Communicating violence risk information to forensic decision makers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854804270630.Google Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010607719239.Google Scholar
Huss, M. T. (2014). Forensic psychology: Research, clinical practice, and applications. Wiley.Google Scholar
Klassen, D., & O’Connor, W. A. (1989). Assessing the risk of violence in released mental patients: A cross-validation study. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1(2), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.1.2.75.Google Scholar
Kroner, D. G. , & Sam, L. (2022). Risk assessment among adults. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367198459-REPRW151-1.Google Scholar
McKee, S. A., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2007). Improving forensic tribunal decisions: The role of the clinician. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(4), 485–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.768.Google Scholar
McNeil, D. E, . & Binder, R. L. (2007) Effectiveness of a mental health court in reducing criminal recidivism and violence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164(9), 1395–1403. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06101664.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., Rufino, K. A., Boccaccini, M. T., Jackson, R. L., & Murrie, D. C. (2011). On individual differences in person perception: Raters’ personality traits relate to their Psychopathy Checklist-Revised scoring tendencies. Assessment, 18(2), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111402460.Google Scholar
Mills, J. F. (2017). Violence risk assessment: A brief review, current issues, and future directions. Canadian Psychology, 58, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000100.Google Scholar
Monahan, J. (1981). The clinical prediction of violent behavior. Crime & Delinquency Issues: A Monograph Series, ADM, 81–921, 134.Google Scholar
Monahan, J. (1988). Risk assessment of violence among the mentally disordered: Generating useful knowledge. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 11(3), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2527(88)90012-X.Google Scholar
Monahan, J. (1992). Risk assessment: Commentary on Poythress and Otto. Forensic Reports, 5(1), 151–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2527(88)90012-X.Google Scholar
Mulvey, E. P., & Lidz, C. W. (1985). Back to basics: A critical analysis of dangerousness research in a new legal environment. Law and Human Behavior, 9(2), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067052.Google Scholar
Murray, J., Charles, K. E., & Cooke, D. J., & Thompson, M. E. (2014). Investigating the influence of causal attributions on both the worksheet and checklist versions of the HCR-20. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.890978.Google Scholar
Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013). Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1889–1897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481812.Google Scholar
Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., et al. (2009). Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluations? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 19–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014897.Google Scholar
Odeh, M. S., Zeiss, R. A., & Huss, M. T. (2006). Cues they use: Clinicians’ endorsement of risk cues in predictions of dangerousness. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.672.Google Scholar
Otto, R. K. (1992). Prediction of dangerous behavior: A review and analysis of “second generation” research. Forensic Reports, 5(1), 103–133.Google Scholar
Padgett, R., Webster, C. D., & Robb, M. K. (2005). Unavailable essential archival data: A major limitation in the conduct of clinical practice and research in violence risk assessment. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry/La Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie, 50(14), 937–940. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370505001408.Google Scholar
Quinsey, V. L., & Maguire, A. (1983). Offenders remanded for a psychiatric examination: Perceived treatability and disposition. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 6(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2527(83)90015-8.Google Scholar
Segal, S., Watson, M., Goldfinger, S., & Averbuck, D. (1988). Civil commitment in the psychiatric emergency room: I The assessment of dangerousness by emergency room clinicians. Archives of General Psychiatry, 45, 753–758. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1988.01800320064008.Google Scholar
Singh, J. P., Desmarais, S. L., Hurducas, C., et al. (2014). International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: A global survey of 44 countries. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(3), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.922141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P., Monahan, J., & MacGregor, D. G. (2000). Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instructions, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005595519944.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, M. E., & Harte, J. M. (2015). Violence against mental health care professionals: Prevalence, nature and consequences. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 26, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2015.1012533.Google Scholar
Viljoen, J. L., Cochrane, D. M., & Jonnson, M. R. (2018). Do risk assessment tools help manage and reduce risk of violence in reoffending? A systematic review. Law and Human Behavior, 42(3), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000280.Google Scholar
Viljoen, J. L., Jonnson, M. R., Cochrane, D. M., Vargen, L. M., & Vincent, G. M. (2019). Impact of risk assessment instruments on rates of pretrial detention, postconviction placements, and release: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 43(5), 397–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000344.Google Scholar
Viljoen, J. L. , Vargen, L. M. , Cochrane, D. M., et al. (2021). Do structured risk assessments predict violent, any, and sexual offending better than unstructured judgment? An umbrella review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000299.Google Scholar
Werner, P., & Meloy, J. (1992). Decision making about dangerousness in releasing patients from long-term hospitalizations. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 20, 25–47.Google Scholar
Werner, P., Rose, T., L., & Yesavage, J. A. (1983). Reliability, accuracy, and decision-making strategy in clinical predictions of imminent dangerousness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 816–825. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.51.6.815.Google Scholar
Wormith, J. S., Hogg, S., Guzzo, L. (2012). The predictive validity of a general risk/needs assessment inventory on sexual offender recidivism and an exploration of the professional override. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(12), 1511–1538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812455741.Google Scholar