Abstract
To affect violence risk management decisions, it is necessary to apply a decision threshold to the estimates that actuarial violence risk assessments generate. Despite widespread agreement that the choice of decision threshold is a matter of policy rather than of science, no one has actually asked policy makers about their choices. A survey was conducted asking 26 judges where they would set the decision threshold for instituting short-term civil commitment as a “danger to others.” The five risk assessment options communicated to the judges were the Risk Classes obtained in the MacArthur Study. Results showed great variability among judges. As a group, however, judges chose Risk Class 3 – a 0.26 likelihood of committing a violent act – as their decision threshold for short-term civil commitment.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-6 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | International Journal of Forensic Mental Health |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 1 2003 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Phychiatric Mental Health
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine
- Psychiatry and Mental health
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Judicial decision thresholds for violence risk management'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver