" (Vossekuil, Borum, Fein, and Reddy, 2008) Stated to be an example of inductive assessment strategy is that of profiling. Profiling involves a description of the 'typical perpetrator' being compiled through use of characteristics that previous perpetrators of that specific type of crime have met. This profile is then used as a template or prototype for comparison of individuals who are believed or suspected to be a potential perpetrator. In contrast, the process of threat assessment is deductive on a fundamental level and has as its focus primarily the 'facts of the particular case in question to guide inferences about whether the person is thinking about, planning, or building capacity for a violent act. The threat assessment approach emphasizes close examination of the progression of ideas and planning behaviors over time and corroboration of information gathered in the case from multiple sources in contact with the potential perpetrator." (Vossekuil, Borum, Fein, and Reddy, 2008)

Threat assessment is stated to be guided by "several operational principles" and to rely on key questions "that ECSP research suggests are important to ask when evaluating the risk posed by an individual for acts of targeted violence." (Vossekuil, Borum, Fein, and Reddy, 2008). Stated as the three principles that guide threat assessment are as follows: (1) targeted violence is the end result of an understandable and often discernible process of thinking and behavior. Acts of targeted violence are neither impulsive nor spontaneous. (2) it is important to distinguish between making a threat and posing a threat. Many people who make threats do not pose a serious risk of harm to a target. People may make threats for a variety of reasons, many of which are unrelated to any desire or intent to harm the target. Conversely, many who pose a serious risk of harm will not issue direct threats prior to an attack.

It is related that after the assassination of "Judge Daranco, U.S. District Judge Dudley H. Bowen Jr., spokesman for the Federal...

Unfortunately, people who are going to kill you ain't going to threaten you. They are going to do it" (Blum 1988, 3 in: Vossekuil, Borum, Fein, and Reddy, 2008)
Summary and Conclusion

This brief study has examined courthouse security in the event of a high-profile trial and has related various references and authorities relating to the implementation of security for this particular scenario. The initiative of courthouse security is complex and involves many actors and this is an initiative that requires communication optimization and highly effective coordination.

Bibliography

Baehler, Aimee and Somerlot, Douglas K. (2005) Security and Disaster Preparedness: A Collaborative Process between State and Federal Courts. Aug 2005. The Justice Management Institute. Denver Colorado. www.jimjustice.org.

Renfroe, Nancy a. And Smith, Joseph L. (2008) Threat Vulnerability Assessments and Risk Analysis. 24 May 2008. Applied Research Associates. Online available: http://www.wbdg.org/resources/riskanalysis.php

Vossekuil, Bryan, Borum, Randy, Fein, Robert, and Reddy, Marisa (2008) Preventing Targeted Violence against Judicial Officials and Courts. United States Secret Service. Online available at: http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_aapss.shtml

Form for 1.2.1 National Sheriffs' Association Physical Security Checklist (nd) Online available at: http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/TCPS/Forms/Form_121.pdf

Casey, Pamela (2006) a National Plan Judicial Branch Security Strategy. National Center for State Courts and National Sheriff's Association. 7 Feb 2006. Online available at: http://www.domesticpreparedness.com/pub/docs/DPJournalJul09.pdf

Weiner, Neil Alan, et al. (2000) Safe and Secure: Protecting Judicial Officials. Court Review Winter 2000. http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr36-4/36-4SafeSecure.pdf