NCJ Number
192000
Journal
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology Volume: 16 Issue: 1 Dated: Spring 2001 Pages: 1-10
Date Published
2001
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This paper discusses several aspects of predicting future violence and dangerousness and presents cautions that come with such predictions.
Abstract
The assessment of dangerousness is not a diagnosis. Instead, it is a clinical impression based on the individual’s past history of violence and many other factors. Roth has noted that the essence of dangerousness appears to be a paucity of concern for others. As a subjective opinion, predicting violence and future dangerousness requires scrutiny and due diligence. The judicial decision in Tarasoff v U.C. Board of Regents and numerous government and civil code sections impose a duty of law enforcement and medical professionals to warn a foreseeable victim of impending harm or danger. Clinicians also need to assess the impact of predicting dangerousness on the deprivation of an individual’s liberty. Thus, threat assessment evaluations have inherent social and legal ramifications; clinicians must accept the responsibility with the knowledge that they may not always achieve accuracy. Protection for competing and equally important rights and interests requires combining all components in the dangerousness issue into a fair and standardized structure. 15 references (Author abstract modified)