Violence Risk Assessment

Introduction

  • The importance of violence risk assessment is paramount in forensic psychology and law due to its direct impact on public safety, individual liberties, and the fairness of legal proceedings. This involves evaluating the potential for an individual to engage in future violent acts.

  • Courts extensively rely on these assessments for critical sentencing decisions, including determining appropriate terms during pre-sentence investigations, and for evaluating the likelihood of re-offense. This information helps judges impose sentences that balance rehabilitation with public protection.

  • The concept of dangerousness is a critical component for civil commitment processes, dictating whether an individual with a mental illness poses a sufficient threat to themselves or others to warrant involuntary confinement. It is also vital for parole and probation supervision decisions, influencing the level of monitoring and conditions placed on offenders in the community.

  • Risk assessments are increasingly utilized in various broader contexts, beyond traditional legal settings. This includes schools, where threat assessment teams identify potential threats among students, and businesses, for purposes like employee screening or developing workplace violence prevention strategies. These applications aim to proactively mitigate harm.

  • Significant legal and psychological advancements have been made in the field of violence risk assessment over the past decades. These advancements include the development of more sophisticated structured assessment tools, an increased focus on comprehensive risk management strategies, and the establishment of clearer ethical guidelines for assessors.

Chapter Objectives

  1. Identify the nature of violence and the purpose of risk assessment.

  2. Describe the historical development of risk assessment.

  3. Understand the differences among various approaches to risk assessment and the role of risk management.

  4. Discuss issues impacting the accuracy of risk assessments.

Nature of Violence and Violence Risk Assessment

Defining Violence

  • Definition of Violence: Based on Hart (2005), violence is defined as "actual, attempted, or threatened physical harm that is deliberate and nonconsenting" with a clear emphasis on intentional physical aggression.

  • Exclusions: This definition purposefully excludes consensual physical contact (e.g., participation in sports where injuries may occur but are not maliciously intended) and accidental harm (e.g., unforeseen accidents), as these lack the deliberate intent to inflict harm. The reason for these exclusions is the absence of malicious intent, which is central to the legal and forensic understanding of violence.

  • Focus on physical harm helps in quantifying and measuring violent acts effectively for legal assessments. Physical harm is generally easier to observe, document, and prove in a court setting compared to more subjective forms of harm.

  • Emotional or verbal violence, while impactful in other contexts such as therapeutic settings or interpersonal relationships, is often less pertinent in legal contexts because it typically does not directly lead to decisions on bail or sentencing discrepancies unless it escalates or directly contributes to physical harm.

  • Examples of Violent Acts: Direct examples include murder, assault (e.g., punching, kicking, stabbing), sexual assault, and aggression involving a weapon (e.g., brandishing a knife with intent to intimidate or harm). Mere threats, such as a verbal threat to kill or injure, may also warrant attention if they are deemed severe, credible, and convey a clear intent to cause harm.

Violence as a Choice

  • Violence is characterized as a choice, implying volition and an element of decision-making, even if this choice is heavily influenced by a complex interplay of psychological, societal, and biological factors (Hart, 2005).

  • Key considerations include:

    • The significant impact of substances like alcohol or drugs on decision-making processes, which can impair judgment, increase impulsivity, and lower inhibitions, making individuals more prone to violent choices.

    • Situational triggers, such as provocation, perceived threats, financial stress, or relationship conflicts, that may lead an individual to choose violent responses as a coping mechanism or reaction.

  • Legal implications: The concept of Mens Rea (Latin for "guilty mind") is fundamental in criminal law, implying that legal responsibility for violent acts assumes a criminal intent or volition behind the act. This requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant acted with a guilty or wrongful purpose.

    • Mens Rea: Indicates intentional commission of an act with a guilty or wrongful purpose, which is a prerequisite for most violent crime convictions.

    • Legal exceptions exist for diminished responsibility (e.g., insanity defense), but these are rare and exceedingly stringent. Such defenses typically require a severe mental disease or defect that prevents the individual from understanding the nature or wrongfulness of their actions at the time of the offense.

Psychological Insights

  • Clinicians predict behaviors as a core aim of psychology, and in forensic contexts, this extends to anticipating future violence.

  • Although historically predicting violence has faced significant debates regarding its accuracy and reliability (Quinsey et al., 2006), the field is continuously evolving to provide more nuanced and empirically-supported assessments.

  • Valuable assessments describe various dimensions of violence risk, offering a comprehensive understanding rather than a simple dichotomous (violent/non-violent) prediction:

    • Nature: Identifies the specific type of violence, such as domestic violence, sexual violence, politically motivated violence, or general physical assault. Understanding the nature is crucial as different types have distinct risk factors and require tailored intervention strategies.

    • Severity: Assesses the level of seriousness of potential violence, ranging from minor assault (e.g., a push) to severe harm (e.g., potential for murder or grievous bodily harm). This informs the potential impact and necessary security measures.

    • Frequency: Estimates the likelihood of repeated acts versus isolated incidents. This distinguishes between individuals who might engage in chronic patterns of violence and those whose violence might be an acute, single event.

    • Imminence: Determines the urgency of potential violence, indicating whether a threat is immediate (e.g., due to untreated acute symptoms like command hallucinations) or a more long-term possibility. This guides crisis intervention and immediate safety planning.

    • Likelihood: Provides an overall probability or categorization (e.g., low, moderate, high risk) of violent behavior occurring in the future, often expressed as a risk level.

Legal Realities of Violence Risk Assessments

Historical Context

  • Key Supreme Court cases have profoundly influenced the trajectory and application of violence risk assessments in the U.S. legal system:

    • Barefoot v. Estelle (1983): This landmark case allowed expert psychiatric testimony about a defendant's future dangerousness, even in capital sentencing proceedings, despite widespread concerns about the reliability of such predictions. It effectively opened the door for mental health professionals to offer opinions on future violence in court, despite initial scientific reservations from within the profession itself.

    • Schall v. Martin (1984): The Court affirmed the constitutionality of preventive detention for juveniles based on an assessed risk of future violence, reasoning that it served the legitimate state objective of protecting both the juvenile and society from harm.

    • O’Connor v. Donaldson (1975): This case established that dangerousness to oneself or others is a prerequisite for involuntary civil commitment. It ruled that a non-dangerous individual capable of surviving safely in freedom cannot be civilly confined against their will, even if they are mentally ill, thereby setting a critical standard for involuntary hospitalization.

    • Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) & Kansas v. Crane (2002): These cases confirmed the constitutionality of civil commitment laws that allow states to involuntarily confine sexually violent predators after their prison sentences have been served, based on findings of a mental abnormality or personality disorder coupled with a demonstrated inability to control dangerous behavior. Crane later refined Hendricks, clarifying that a lack of volitional control (inability to control one's behavior) must be demonstrated, not merely a diagnosis of mental abnormality, for civil commitment.

In class notes:

-Clinical Assesment is like a flip of a coin because of BIAS

Clinical interview is an interview w a goal in mind.

Acturial assessment you use tools that are specific to the risk factors