Predicting Institutional Violence among Death Row Inmates: The Utility of the Sorensen and Pilgrim Model

Abstract

The (Sorensen and Pilgrim, An actuarial risk assessment of violence posed by capital murder defendants. J Crim Law Criminol 90: [1251][1252][1253][1254][1255][1256][1257][1258][1259][1260][1261][1262][1263][1264][1265][1266][1267][1268][1269][1270] 2000) actuarial model was developed to predict institutional violence among lifesentenced murderers. However, despite its presentation at capital sentencing, the model has not been validated on death row inmates specifically. This study examined the association between Sorensen and Pilgrim model scores and five types of institutional violence (serious assaults, minor assaults, verbal assault/threats, prison order offenses, and non-violent infractions) among a sample of 155 individuals who had been incarcerated on death row in Texas. Results revealed that risk scores performed better for non-violent infractions than for serious assaults, calling into question the utility of this measure for capital sentencing evaluations.

Correlates and Actuarial Models of Assaultive Prison Misconduct Among Violence-Predicted Capital Offenders

“…Prior probated sentences, drug conviction offenses, sentences less than 11 years, and sentences of life without parole were excluded from the current study. -Vollum et al (2008), the current study found the S&P scale, as well as the others examined herein, to be moderately associated with potentially violent and assaultive offenses inclusive of the least serious. Unlike Buffington-Vollum et al, however, the current study found the S&P scale, as well as the other actuarial models, to be optimally related to serious assaults.…”

“…As Table 1 reflects, several of the actuarial models (S&P, RASP-CC, RASP-Cap) were modestly successful in modeling violence at all severity levels (i.e., potential violence, assaults, and serious assaults) in their construction samples and predicting violence in other samples. Buffington-Vollum, Edens, and Keilen (2008), however, found that the S&P scale was modestly associated with general disciplinary misconduct and minor assaults, but not with serious assaults. This discrepancy is likely a function of the low prevalence (or base rates) of serious assaults.…”