Predicting Violence Potential the Objective

Predicting Violence Potential

The objective of this study is to address the forensic psychologist in the correctional setting and the criterion utilized in assessing violence potential. Violence may be defined as including "actual, attempted, or threatened physical harm that is deliberate and nonconsenting." (Huss,, p. 102) Assessment of risk is not merely identifying whether the individual is likely to be violent in the future but also provides a description for the "potential severity of the violence and the context in which it occurs." (Huss, p.103) Therefore, the forensic psychologist when predicting the likelihood of violence should also indicate "the nature of the likely violence, the severity, or the conditions under which it will occur." (Huss, 2008, p. 103-4)

Clinical risk assessments are made upon the basis of human judgment reported to be shaped by "education and professional experience." (Huss, 2008, p. 109) Actuarial risk assessments are such that utilize "previously demonstrated associations between measurable and specified predictors and outcome variables and are ultimately determined by fixed, or mechanical, and explicit rules." (Huss, 2008, p.109) Structured approaches to risk assessment are held as a "middle ground to purely clinical and actuarial approaches" and are such that use a "standard framework or tool that identifies a list of factors relevant in arriving at an assessment of risk" however; this approach does consider clinical judgment.

Actuarial measures of violence involves use of various instruments that take into account the history of the individual and any previous violence, relationship instability, problems with employment, substance use problems, psychopathy, early maladjustment, personality disorder and prior supervision failure. Clinical items include such as lack of insight, attitudes that are negative, active symptoms of major mental illnesses, impulsivity, and lack of response to treatment. Risk items include the lack of feasibility of plans, exposure to destabilizers, lack of personal support and noncompliance with remediation attempts as well as stress. (Webster, Douglas, Eaves and Hart, 1997 in Huss, 2008, p. 115)

Risk factors may be static in nature. Static factors are described as "variables that increase the risk of future violence but are unlikely to change and are often fixed." (Huss, 2008, p.115) This include such as the individual's gender and race. Dynamic factors are also used to consider violence potential. Dynamic factors are inclusive of such as the individual's attitudes and psychiatric status as well as their behavioral and affective characteristics. Dynamic factors are held as being more difficult to identify than static factors. Protective factors are reported to be an aspect of risk assessment that has been overlooked. Protective factors are such that decreases the chance of the individual committing violence. Protective factors include a supportive network of friends and family with religious convictions that are strong and which "act as buffers" to reduce the risk of violence potential. This includes potential violence in the form of suicide by the individual.