Dangerousness FORP 6102
Popular in Psychology and Legal System 2
Popular in Physiology
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Ashley Blair on Sunday February 15, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to FORP 6102 at George Washington University taught by Dr. Nick Xenakis in Winter2015. Since its upload, it has received 133 views. For similar materials see Psychology and Legal System 2 in Physiology at George Washington University.
Reviews for Dangerousness
Same time next week teach? Can't wait for next weeks notes!
-Dr. Terrence Kirlin
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/15/15
Week 5Dangerouesness 21015 US v Comstock Justice Kagan Speaking for the United States government 0 Dangeroussexually dangerous to reoffendquotWe know they will reoffendquot Alan39s Response 0 Any further detaining must stand on an independent law Hypothetical Mr Ecker O lndicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm 0 Found incompetent to stand trial SchizophreniaBipolar O Wrote threatening letters to nurse and judge Is he a danger to society if released Government Doctor39s Eval 0 History of violent behavior Assault and arson O Admitted to using drugs and alcohol 0 Named potential targets nurse and judge These are who he is fixated on 0 History of carrying weapons 0 Recent conduct included the letters 0 Admitted often did not take medicine Jackson You cant hold somebody indefinitely Defense Doctor 0 Last assault occurred more than a decade ago 0 No violence while confined for three years quotovert acts of violenceare not required to prove dangerousnessquot United States v Ecker 30 F3d 966 970 8th Cir 1994 DangerousnessRisk Assessment Used in many contexts but no consistent legal definition 0 Potential due process issue of quotvaguenessquot Difficult to predict VERY important in quotsignificantquot decisions eg death penalty sentencing probation and parole involuntary commitment etcquot Prediction Definition of dangerous problematic No direct relationship between mental illness and violence Two essential components 0 Psychological criteria a mental illness or impairment 0 Predictive validity ability to predict who will be likely to act in a violent way Our ability to predict future behavior is not that good Threat Assessment Most mass murderers tell someone 0 Whether direct or indirect in passing Identification of threats 0 Includes seriousness of threats EX Can the person actually get to the person they want to harm Evaluation of seriousness of threats Intervention Q Have they had treatment before Somewhat narrower than risk Assessment 0 Focus is on behavior not trait characteristics Focusing on what steps they are taking to get there can they really do it rather than they are really angry 0 Risk is dynamic not static Transient Threats Often are rhetorical remarks not genuine expressions of intent to harm At worst expressions of temporary feeling of anger or frustration Easily resolved after resolution threat no longer exists Substantive Threats Express intent to injure someone beyond the immediate situation There is at least some risk the threat will be carried out 0 Intention 0 Means Require some sort of corrective action When in doubt treat threat as substantive Q We are worried about dangerousness 0 People are more worried about being quotsafe than sorryquot Duty to Warn Tarasoff v Regents of Univ of California 0 Wrongful death case brought by family of a murder victim against psychologists for failure to warn them of patients dangerousness 0 Court found that there is a duty to warn to special relationship between therapist and client Warning police and the person of threat or someone close to the person of threat 0 Duty to warn trumps duty to maintain confidences where there is a reasonable belief that a threat is credible Mass Murderers Virginia tech Columbine Auroa Jared Loughner Newtown CT Legal Issues 14th amendment Preventive detention really punishment in disguise Addington v Texas 0 quotclear and convincingquotevidentiary standard for involuntary commitment Barefoot v Estelle 0 Psychiatric testimony admissible on issue of dangerousness even though it is difficult to predict O39Connor v Donaldson 0 Mental illness absent either dangerousness or inability to care for oneself not sufficient for confinement Builds off of Jackson 0 Has to be released when no longer meets criteria Preventive Detention Slobogin article Necessary 0 Consideration of less restrictive alternatives 0 Treatment 0 Periodic review Selig v Young 0 Commitment without the possibility of treatment probably impermissible JuvenHes The sway of developmental issues make this like trying to assess quota moving targetquot Thought to be more dependent on peer and situational influences Family factors can be exerting unseen stress on adolescents Psychiatric factors are more difficult to diagnose with precision and to medicate with a full range of options Academic policies can be seen pitted against the wellbeing of the individual By their mid 2039s 75 of the new offenders had ceased all delinquent behavior Life CoursePersistent behavior look in posted slides on black board Sex Offenders United States v Comstock 0 Sex offenders can be civilly committed indefinitely following their sentence if deemed quotsexually dangerousquot 0 Rational is the inability to control their conduct Question why just sex offenders O Antisocial personality disorder 0 Violent criminals 0 They have the highest rates of recidivism We DO have measures though 0 Static99
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'