NCJ Number
79160
Journal
University of Pennsylvania Law Review Volume: 123 Dated: (1974) Pages: 439-452
Date Published
1974
Length
14 pages
Annotation
The psychiatrist's difficulty in predicting a person's dangerousness to others is discussed, and procedural changes in the handling of potentially dangerous persons in the legal system are proposed.
Abstract
The scientific literature does not show any clinical experience or statistical evidence that certain psychological or physical signs or symptoms can be used to discriminate reliably between the potentially dangerous and the harmless individual. The evidence that certain signs may sometimes be associated with violent behavior is not sufficient to meet the legal need for criteria that will discriminate between the potentially violent and harmless person. Accordingly, courts should no longer ask behavioral scientists to give their opinion of the potential dangerousness of any person, and when pressed to do so, they should acknowledge their inability to make such predictions. When appropriate legal authority has declared a person dangerous upon the basis of evidence of demonstrated violent behavior, psychiatrists and other experts on human behavior may be asked to give their opinion about whether the dangerous behavior is a consequence of or related to mental or emotional illness. Such experts may also be asked to render an opinion about whether the 'medical model' is appropriate for remedying the dangerous condition and protecting society against the potential danger. They should not be asked to do more than this. A total of 58 footnotes are provided.