Related Experiment Videos
The perils of prediction.
1Department of Psychiatry, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC 20012.
Military Medicine
|October 1, 1990
Summary
Mental health experts predict dangerousness differently in medical versus legal settings. This article stresses the need for careful evaluation and acknowledging forecasting limitations in predicting future dangerousness.
Area of Science:
- Forensic Psychology
- Clinical Psychiatry
Background:
- Dangerousness prediction is a key task for mental health professionals.
- Distinctions exist between medical (imminent) and administrative/legal (future) dangerousness assessments.
- Practitioners must understand the implications of these different assessment contexts.
Purpose of the Study:
- To examine the controversy surrounding the prediction of future dangerousness.
- To advocate for more rigorous evaluation methods in dangerousness assessments.
- To emphasize the importance of disclosing the inherent limitations of forecasting dangerous behavior.
Main Methods:
- Review of existing literature on dangerousness prediction.
- Analysis of the differences between medical and legal/administrative models of dangerousness assessment.
- Examination of the ethical and practical implications for mental health practitioners.
Main Results:
- The prediction of imminent dangerousness is central to clinical practice, focusing on intervention and treatment.
- The prediction of future dangerousness is primarily an administrative or legal function.
- Current methods for predicting future dangerousness are often limited and controversial.
Conclusions:
- A clear understanding of the differing goals and contexts of dangerousness prediction is crucial.
- Mental health professionals should be aware of the limitations inherent in forecasting future dangerousness.
- There is a need for improved methodologies and transparent communication regarding the uncertainties in predicting dangerousness.