NCJ Number
196863
Journal
Criminal Justice and Behavior Volume: 29 Issue: 5 Dated: October 2002 Pages: 659-665
Editor(s)
Kirk Heilbrun
Date Published
October 2002
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This article briefly reviews the debate between actuarial and clinical prediction in the risk of future violence and presents criteria of what a competently executed risk assessment should resemble.
Abstract
The debate has and will continue to rage around actuarial versus clinical prediction as it relates to risk assessment affecting mental patients and those persons accused or convicted of criminally violent offenses. There are those that have been so smitten with the power of actuarial projections of risk that actuarial procedures have been embodied into law, and there are those that have stood by the use of clinical projections. However, both clinical and actuarial projections are important in assessing the individual case around issues of future violence. What it comes down to is which kinds of information should be taken into account at which stages of release or detention. The article presents suggested criteria for assessing risk that includes: (1) the assessment should show an understanding of the applicable legal framework; (2) the mental health or correctional risk assessment must be evidence based or the investigation must have been concluded and presented in a scientific manner; (3) the individualized statement about risk will be specific to the case at hand and as precise as possible; (4) an ideal evaluation before the board will suggest what steps could now be taken in the particular case to reduce or attenuate risk of further violence; and (5) once assessment is complete, conduct a comparison of the specific case at hand with data amassed from statistically driven supplies. References