This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by CUNNINGHAM, M. D. Articles by REIDY, T. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Don't Confuse me with the Facts

Common Errors in Violence Risk Assessment at Capital Sentencing

American Board of Professional Psychology

THOMAS J. REIDY

American Board of Professional Psychology

The life and death context of a capital risk assessment requires a comprehensive forensic evaluation. Mental health professionals routinely testify regarding future dangerousness in capital proceedings but too often limit assessment to DSM-IV diagnoses and criminal history without integrating empirical and actuarial data from other sources. Given the grave magnitude of a capital risk assessment both for the defendant and society, methodological and conceptual errors of this type must be avoided. This article will describe violence risk-assessment errors made by mental health professionals testifying at capital sentencing. Observed errors include inadequate reliance on base rates, failure to consider context, susceptibility to illusory correlation, failure to define severity of violence, overreliance on clinical interview, misapplication of psychological testing, exaggerated implications of antisocial personality disorder, ignoring the effects of aging, misuse of patterns of behavior, neglect of preventive measures, insufficient data, and failure to express the risk estimate in probabilistic terms.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 1, 20-43 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0093854899026001002


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. D. Cunningham and J. R. Sorensen Predictive Factors for Violent Misconduct in Close Custody The Prison Journal, June 1, 2007; 87(2): 241 - 253. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D. Cunningham and J. R. Sorensen Actuarial Models for Assessing Prison Violence Risk: Revisions and Extensions of the Risk Assessment Scale for Prison (RASP) Assessment, September 1, 2006; 13(3): 253 - 265. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D. Cunningham, J. R. Sorensen, and T. J. Reidy An Actuarial Model for Assessment of Prison Violence Risk Among Maximum Security Inmates Assessment, March 1, 2005; 12(1): 40 - 49. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. DeLisi and E. A. Munoz The Irrelevant Future Machinations of Human Predators: Response to Cunningham, Sorensen, and Reidy Criminal Justice Policy Review, September 1, 2004; 15(3): 377 - 384. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D. Cunningham and T. J. Reidy Violence Risk Assessment at Federal Capital Sentencing: Individualization, Generalization, Relevance, and Scientific Standards Criminal Justice and Behavior, October 1, 2002; 29(5): 512 - 537. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. J. REIDY, M. D. CUNNINGHAM, and J. R. SORENSEN From Death to Life: Prison Behavior of Former Death Row Inmates in Indiana Criminal Justice and Behavior, February 1, 2001; 28(1): 62 - 82. [Abstract] [PDF]