Predicting Violent Behavior: The Psychology of Risk Assessment Chapter 14 Leroy Hendricks and Sexually violent Offenders Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment Law (SVP) Civil commitment of potentially dangerous sexual offenders Often in treatment facilities until cleared In the DA’s custody As of 2013, 20 states and federal government passed such laws Includes Texas – exclusively community-based commitment Nearly 4500 sex offender committed under SVP since 1990, and only 494 released by 2007 Leroy Hendricks: First to be held under SVP Leroy Hendricks and Sexually Violent Offenders SVP objectives Police power to protect citizens Parens patriae power to protect those not able to care for themselves Predicting future criminal conduct Psychologists and psychiatrists Controversy regarding accuracy Controversy regarding double jeopardy, ex post facto, substantive due process SVP Laws in United States Blue shading indicates states that have SVP laws. Gray shading indicates states that do not have SVP laws. Figure 14.1 4 Sexually Violent Offenders Why were the SVP laws enacted? Re-offense rates not as large as widely believed, but did increase over time to 24% after 15 years. Sex offenders were thought to be uncontrollable and only stopped through incapacitation Actual rates may be inaccurate. Many unreported sexual crimes Researchers can only sample self-reports, arrests, and convictions Sexual re-offenses also affected by Group of offenders followed Length of time followed Sexually Violent Offenders Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) (U.S. Supreme Court) SPV laws did not violate double jeopardy and ex post constitutional concerns Laws imposed civil rather than criminal punishment and constitutional restrictions on punishment only applied to criminal matters Substantive due process was not violated Risk Assessment and the Law Involuntary civil commitment Decision to place someone in a psychiatric facility against his or her will Mental disorder affecting functioning Danger to self or others Tarasoff Gravely disabled Risk Assessment and the Law Sexually Violent Predator civil commitment (SVP) Protection of community Hendricks v. Hendricks (1994) Broadly defined sexual predator Supreme Court determined parens patriae treatment largely unnecessary (1997) Kansas v. Crane (2002) explained criteria to commit an individual under SVP laws Suffer from mental illness Pose a future danger to society Have serious difficulty controlling his or her urges See Table 14.1 for more information 8 Risk Assessment and the Law DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder Pervasive pattern of violation of rights of others since age 15 as demonstrated by three of seven criteria Eighteen years of age Conduct disorder with onset before 15 years Antisocial behavior not exclusively to actions related to schizophrenia or manic episode See Table 14.1 for more information 9 Risk Assessment and the Law Challenges of risk assessment Protect .

1. Predicting Violent Behavior: The Psychology of Risk
Assessment
Chapter 14
Leroy Hendricks and Sexually violent Offenders
Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment Law (SVP)
Civil commitment of potentially dangerous sexual offenders
Often in treatment facilities until cleared
In the DA’s custody
As of 2013, 20 states and federal government passed such laws
Includes Texas – exclusively community-based commitment
Nearly 4500 sex offender committed under SVP since 1990, and
only 494 released by 2007
Leroy Hendricks: First to be held under SVP
Leroy Hendricks and Sexually Violent Offenders
SVP objectives
Police power to protect citizens
Parens patriae power to protect those not able to care for
themselves
Predicting future criminal conduct
Psychologists and psychiatrists
Controversy regarding accuracy
Controversy regarding double jeopardy, ex post facto,
substantive due process
SVP Laws in United States
Blue shading indicates states that have SVP laws. Gray shading
indicates states that do not have SVP laws.

2. Figure 14.1
4
Sexually Violent Offenders
Why were the SVP laws enacted?
Re-offense rates not as large as widely believed, but did
increase over time to 24% after 15 years.
Sex offenders were thought to be uncontrollable and only
stopped through incapacitation
Actual rates may be inaccurate.
Many unreported sexual crimes
Researchers can only sample self-reports, arrests, and
convictions
Sexual re-offenses also affected by
Group of offenders followed
Length of time followed
Sexually Violent Offenders
Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) (U.S. Supreme Court)
SPV laws did not violate double jeopardy and ex post
constitutional concerns
Laws imposed civil rather than criminal punishment and
constitutional restrictions on punishment only applied to
criminal matters
Substantive due process was not violated
Risk Assessment and the Law
Involuntary civil commitment
Decision to place someone in a psychiatric facility against his
or her will
Mental disorder affecting functioning
Danger to self or others

3. Tarasoff
Gravely disabled
Risk Assessment and the Law
Sexually Violent Predator civil commitment (SVP)
Protection of community
Hendricks v. Hendricks (1994)
Broadly defined sexual predator
Supreme Court determined parens patriae treatment largely
unnecessary (1997)
Kansas v. Crane (2002) explained criteria to commit an
individual under SVP laws
Suffer from mental illness
Pose a future danger to society
Have serious difficulty controlling his or her urges
See Table 14.1 for more information
8
Risk Assessment and the Law
DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder
Pervasive pattern of violation of rights of others since age 15 as
demonstrated by three of seven criteria
Eighteen years of age
Conduct disorder with onset before 15 years
Antisocial behavior not exclusively to actions related to
schizophrenia or manic episode
See Table 14.1 for more information
9

4. Risk Assessment and the Law
Challenges of risk assessment
Protect society
Protect rights of possibly dangerous persons
Accuracy of prediction
Preventative detention is ethically problematic
Courts have almost uniformly upheld the legitimacy of
psychological experts offering testimony on individuals’ future
dangerousness even when: (1) a substantial portion of their
profession has suggested that they are not very good at making
these predictions; and (2) the legal decision at issue determines
whether a criminal defendant lives or dies.
10
Risk Assessment and the Law
Death penalty decision making
Future dangerous standard: Continuing danger to society (TX,
OK, VA, ID, WY)
Barefoot v. Estelle (1983) U.S. Supreme Court
SCOTUS upheld the use and interpretation of expert witness
accounts of future dangerousness despite challenges and
empirical evidence from the American Psychiatric Association
Courts have almost uniformly upheld the legitimacy of
psychological experts offering testimony on individuals’ future
dangerousness even when: (1) a substantial portion of their
profession has suggested that they are not very good at making
these predictions; and (2) the legal decision at issue determines
whether a criminal defendant lives or dies.
11
Executions in the United States:

5. Texas, Virginia, and
Oklahoma since 1976. Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia all use
future
dangerousness as an integral part of their sentencing decision
making.
Figure 14.2
12
HOT TOPIC
Sexual offender community notification and registration laws
1994: Jacob Wettering Act
National registry of sex offenders for public employment
consultation
1996: President Clinton signed Megan’s Law
Notifying public of public and private information about sex
offenders
2008: Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
National online database of sex offenders free to the public
It is an open, empirical question whether these legislative
changes will have any effect on the rates of sexual re-offenses.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SPOTLIGHT
Deranged and dangerous?
Psychiatric disorders are NOT strong predictors of aggressive
behavior.
One-third of severely mentally ill patients with substance abuse
engage in one or more violent acts within year of leaving
hospital; rate drops to about 18 percent for discharged patients
without abuse history.
This is 0.2% of the adult population

6. Methods and Outcomes of Risk Assessment
Outcomes-will the patient become violent or not?
How would you determine risk?
Clinical versus Actuarial Prediction
Unstructured clinical judgment
Clinical intuition, idiographic, qualitative
Actuarial techniques
Statistical use of risk factors, nomothetic approach, quantitative
Guided professional judgment instruments
HCR-20, combines clinical and actuarial
Risk Factors
Historical predictors
Static markers (e.g., age, mental disorders)
Dynamic predictors
Fluctuating markers (e.g., attitude, insight)
Psychiatric symptomatology
Threat/control override system
Risk management markers
Post release adjustment/treatment
Taking All Three Types of Markers into Account
Reasons for the neglect of dynamic and risk management
markers
They are more difficult to measure than historical risk factors
They generally contribute less to accurate prediction than

7. historical risk factors
They are less well-studied than historical factors
Actuarial/guided professional
instruments=better predictions
Jurors and Risk Assessment Evidence
Research
Clinical predictions had greater impact on jurors
Jurors more likely to believe psychologists using professional
judgment and expertise
Clinical testimony easier to understand for jurors
Guided Professional Judgment Instruments
Risk assessment tools
Guide the decision making of clinicians
Combine accuracy of actuarial methods with flexibility of
clinical decision making
Example: HCR-20 is guided professional judgment approach
Treatment to Reduce Risk of Violence
Treatment
Promote adjustment
Improve public safety
Emphases of Treatment
Assist in life domains
Improve social skills
Communicate with legal officials
Step-down programs.