Deck 14: Section 1: Workplace Law: Harassment, Discrimination, and Fairness

Question 1

What criteria must an individual meet to be involuntarily civilly committed? Do these criteria differ for sexually violent predators?

Answer 1

Main points:
• To hospitalize someone against his/her will, most states require that two conditions are met: a disabling mental illness and imminent danger to self or others.
• Still, there are significant variations by state in exact criteria and their application.
• SVP laws provide an even wider latitude for civil commitment. In most states, the laws are crafted after Kansas v. Hendricks, outlining two criteria that need to be met: having a past conviction for a violent sex offense and having some mental abnormality or personality disorder.
• In Kansas v. Crane, the Supreme Court clarified the Hendricks criteria, outlined two adding that to be involuntarily committed, a person must have "serious difficulty controlling his or her urges".

Question 2

How does clinical risk assessment differ from actuarial risk assessment?

Answer 2

Main points:
• Clinical risk assessment relies on unstructured judgment and intuition of a psychologist or psychiatrist in predicting the risk of violence;
• Actuarial methods rely on statistical analysis of many variables that have been shown to predict violence when large groups of people were analyzed statistically;
• Actuarial predictors can be divided into three large groups: historical, or static, markers (age at first offense, criminal history, major mental disorder or personality disorder, etc.), dynamic markers (current impulsivity levels, taking and responding to medication, etc.), and risk management markers (living arrangements, current family situation, etc.).
Optional bonus point: Actuarial methods have been shown more accurate than clinical in predicting violence but juries and judges are more positively predisposed and receptive to clinical judgment.

Question 3

What are the ethical issues involved in risk assessment?

Answer 3

Main points:
• The key ethical issue involved in risk assessment is that there are no reliable methods to predict future violent behavior.
• Most psychologists and psychiatrists acknowledge that they cannot predict risk well, and multiple research studies confirm that.
• Preventative detention is ethically problematic because a person is held based on unreliable predictions of future dangerousness.
• At the same time, the courts do not hesitate to rely on unreliable predictions by experts not only in civil commitment cases but also in the death penalty cases.
• Death penalty cases are especially problematic because "future dangerousness" weighed against death should only include dangerousness in prison since the alternative in life in prison without parole.
• Another ethical dilemma for psychologists and psychiatrists is presenting risk assessment information to jurors and judges: mental health experts know that clinical risk assessment is better perceived by jurors and judges but it is a less accurate method than actuarial risk assessment.