The Use of Actuarials at Civil Commitment Hearings to Predict the Likelihood of Future Sexual Violence

Abstract

Some have argued that acturarial methods such as the RRASOR, the MNSOSTR, and the Static-99, can outperform clinical judgments when utilized at a civil commitment hearing to make a prediction. Although actuarial data can be used to identify a group of persons to be considered for possible civil commitment, at present it cannot be used to accurately predict the likelihood of future acts of sexual violence with respect to any specific individual within such a group. For that reason, it might be best to restrict the use of acturial data to the initial screening process, rather than introducing it at the commitment hearing itself.

Psychopathy, expert testimony, and indeterminate sentences: Exploring the relationship between Psychopathy Checklist‐Revised testimony and trial outcome in Canada

“…While there is concern that experts may misapply research findings, a more disquieting possibility is that some testifying professionals are ignorant of key aspects of risk assessment (Archer, Buffington‐Vollum, Stredny, & Handel, 2006; Grann & Pallvik, 2002; Tolman & Mullendore, 2003) or use risk instruments inappropriately (Cunningham & Reidy, 2002; Tolman & Rotzien, 2007). However, despite the clearly problematic issue of some professionals' and lay persons' disregard for actuarial and accurate risk assessment (Berlin, Galbreath, Geary, & McGlone, 2003; Freedman, 2001), valid concerns can be raised about expert testimony that uses risk instruments legitimately. Risk instruments have the potential to suggest a person exists in an enduring state of dangerousness rather than providing a probability range of future acts (Cunningham, 2006; McGuire, 2004; Mercado & Ogloff, 2007).…”

Another Look at Interpreting Risk Categories

“…T. Harris et al, 2003) suggest that using more complicated scales (e.g., the SORAG and VRAG) may yield additional levels of accuracy. The use of mental health expertise to effect legal decisions about preventive confinement of sex offenders raises significant ethical questions (Berlin, Galbreath, Geary, & McGlone, 2003;Janus & Prentky, 2003). Yet, if one accepts that such evaluations will take place, "[t]he evidence supporting the validity of these risk scales is now sufficient that they should be routinely included in applied risk assessments with sexual offenders" (Harris & Hanson, 2004, p. 12).…”

An Analysis of Dangerous Sexual Offender Assessment Reports: Recommendations for Best Practice

“…For instance, if an offender scores 6 on the Static-99 instrument he is considered to be in the ''high-risk'' category, 52% of whom (in the original sample) were known to reoffend throughout a 15-year follow-up. However, the instrument cannot specify whether the ''high'' risk offender belongs to the 52% of people in this category who sexually reoffended, or to the 48% of people who did not (Berlin et al, 2003). Therefore, an individual's score on the actuarial tool fails to be a reliable guide to the individual's specific risk to sexually reoffend, for the simple reason that actuarial methods are not designed to assign levels of risk to individuals but to groups (Mullen & Ogloff, 2009).…”

“…A significant issue that compromises the validity of actuarial instruments concerns the unreliability of applying the group-based risk evaluation of an actuarial tool to the assessment of risk in the individual case (Berlin, Galbreath, Geary, & McGlone, 2003;Hart et al, 2007;Mullen & Ogloff, 2009). For instance, if an offender scores 6 on the Static-99 instrument he is considered to be in the ''high-risk'' category, 52% of whom (in the original sample) were known to reoffend throughout a 15-year follow-up.…”