Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice and Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cunningham, M. D.
Right arrow Articles by Reidy, T. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Violence Risk Assessment at Federal Capital Sentencing

Individualization, Generalization, Relevance, and Scientific Standards

Mark D. Cunningham

Dallas, Texas

Thomas J. Reidy

Monterey, California

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.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 5, 512-537 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/009385402236731
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The Prison JournalHome page
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]

Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
M. D. Cunningham and J. R. Sorensen
Nothing to Lose? A Comparative Examination of Prison Misconduct Rates Among Life-Without-Parole and Other Long-Term High-Security Inmates
Criminal Justice and Behavior, December 1, 2006; 33(6): 683 - 705.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 AssessmentHome page
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]

Home page
 AssessmentHome page
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]

Home page
 Criminal Justice Policy ReviewHome page
M. D. Cunningham, J. R. Sorensen, and T. J. Reidy
Revisiting Future Dangerousness Revisited: Response to DeLisi and Munoz
Criminal Justice Policy Review, September 1, 2004; 15(3): 365 - 376.
[Abstract] [PDF]