Neuroethics

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 67–99 | Cite as

Neuroprediction, Violence, and the Law: Setting the Stage

  • Thomas Nadelhoffer
  • Stephanos Bibas
  • Scott Grafton
  • Kent A. Kiehl
  • Andrew Mansfield
  • Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
  • Michael Gazzaniga
Review Paper

Abstract

In this paper, our goal is to (a) survey some of the legal contexts within which violence risk assessment already plays a prominent role, (b) explore whether developments in neuroscience could potentially be used to improve our ability to predict violence, and (c) discuss whether neuropredictive models of violence create any unique legal or moral problems above and beyond the well worn problems already associated with prediction more generally. In “Violence Risk Assessment and the Law”, we briefly examine the role currently played by predictions of violence in three high stakes legal contexts: capital sentencing (“Violence Risk Assessment and Capital Sentencing”), civil commitment hearings (“Violence Risk Assessment and Civil Commitment”), and “sexual predator” statutes (“Violence Risk Assessment and Sexual Predator Statutes”). In “Clinical vs. Actuarial Violence Risk Assessment”, we briefly examine the distinction between traditional clinical methods of predicting violence and more recently developed actuarial methods, exemplified by the Classification of Violence Risk (COVR) software created by John Monahan and colleagues as part of the MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence [1]. In “The Neural Correlates of Psychopathy”, we explore what neuroscience currently tells us about the neural correlates of violence, using the recent neuroscientific research on psychopathy as our focus. We also discuss some recent advances in both data collection (“Cutting-Edge Data Collection: Genetically Informed Neuroimaging”) and data analysis (“Cutting-Edge Data Analysis: Pattern Classification”) that we believe will play an important role when it comes to future neuroscientific research on violence. In “The Potential Promise of Neuroprediction”, we discuss whether neuroscience could potentially be used to improve our ability to predict future violence. Finally, in “The Potential Perils of Neuroprediction”, we explore some potential evidentiary (“Evidentiary Issues”), constitutional (“Constitutional Issues”), and moral (“Moral Issues”) issues that may arise in the context of the neuroprediction of violence.

Keywords

Neuroscience Prediction Criminal law Psychopathy Violence risk assessment 

References

  1. 1.
    Monahan, J., H. Steadman, E. Silver, P.S. Applebaum, A. Clark-Robbins, E.P. Mulvey, L. Roth, T. Grisso, and S. Banks. 2001. Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorder and violence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Psychological Association. 1974. Report of the task force on the role of psychology in the criminal justice system. American Psychologist 33: 1099–1113.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Megargee, E. 1976. The prediction of dangerous behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior 3: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shah, S. 1995. Dangerousness: A paradigm for exploring some issues in law and psychology. American Psychologist 33: 224–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Slobogin, C. 1996. Dangerousness as a criterion in the criminal process. In Sales, B. & Shuman, D. (Eds.) Law, Mental Health, and Mental Disorder, 360–363.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Claussen-Schulz, A., M. Pearce, and R. Schopp. 2004. Dangerousness, risk assessment, and capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 10(4): 471–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blume, J.H., S.P. Garvey, and S.L. Johnson. 2001. Future dangerousness in capital cases: Always “at issue”. Cornell Law Rev 86: 397–410.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirchmeier, J.L. 1998. Aggravating and mitigating factors: The paradox of today’s arbitrary and mandatory capital punishment scheme. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 6(2): 345–459.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cunningham, M.D., and T.J. Reidy. 2002. Violence risk assessment at federal capital sentencing: Individualization, generalization, relevance, and scientific standards. Criminal Justice and Behavior 29: 512–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edens, J.F. 2001. Misuses of the hare psychopathy checklist-revised in court: Two case examples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 16: 1082–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reid, W. 2001. Psychiatry and the death penalty. Journal of Psychiatric Practice 7: 216–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Melton, G., J. Petrila, N. Poythress, and C. Slobogin. 1997. Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Slobogin, C. 1984. Dangerousness and expertise. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 133(1): 97–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fitch, W.L., and R.J. Ortega. 2000. Law and the confinement of psychopaths. Behavioral Science and the Law 18: 663–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morse, S.J. 1998. Fear of danger, flight from culpability. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law 4(1/2): 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morse, S.J. 2004. Preventive confinement of dangerous offenders. Journal of Medicine and Ethics 32: 56–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ennis, G., and R. Litwack. 1974. Psychiatry and the presumption of expertise: Flipping coins in the courtroom. California Law Review 62: 693–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meehl, P. 1954. Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Monahan, J. 1995. The clinical prediction of violent behavior. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc. [Originally published in 1981 as Predicting violent behavior: An assessment of clinical techniques by Sage Publishing]Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dix, G. 1975. Determining the continued dangerousness of psychologically abnormal sex offenders. Journal of Psychiatry and the Law 3: 327–344.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krauss, D.A., and B.D. Sales. 2001. The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 7(2): 267–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Monahan, J., and E. Silver. 2003. Judicial decision thresholds for violence risk management. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 2: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Monahan, J., H.J. Steadman, P.S. Appelbaum, T. Grisso, E.P. Mulvey, L.H. Roth, et al. 2006. The classification of violence risk. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 24(6): 721–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krauss, D.A., and D.H. Lee. 2003. Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors’ ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and expert clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 26: 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Redding, R.E., M.Y. Floyd, and G.L. Hawk. 2001. What judges and lawyers think about the testimony of mental health experts: A survey of the courts and bar. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 19: 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Andrews, D.A., J. Bonta, and J.S. Wormwith. 2006. The recent and past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency 52: 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Buchanan, A. 1999. Risk and dangerousness. Psychological Medicine 29: 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dolan, M., and M. Doyle. 2000. Violence risk prediction: Clinical and actuarial measures and the role of the Psychopathy Checklist. British Journal of Psychiatry 177: 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Otto, R.K. 2000. Assessing and managing violence risk in outpatient settings. Journal of Clinical Psychology 56: 1239–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang, Y., and A. Raine. 2009. Prefrontal structural and functional brain imaging findings in antisocial, violent, and psychopathic individuals: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research 174(2): 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hare, R. 1991. The hare psychopathy checklist—revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harpur, T., R. Hakistan, and R. Hare. 1988. Factor structure of the psychopathy checklist. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 56: 741–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hart, S., and R. Dempster. 1997. Impulsivity and psychopathy. In Impulsivity: Theory, assessment and treatment, ed. C. Webster and M. Jackson, 212–232. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hare, R.D., and J.W. Jutai. 1983. Criminal history of the male psychopath: Some preliminary data. In Prospective studies of crime and delinquency, ed. K.T. Van Dusen and S.A. Mednick, 225–236. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hare, R.D., and L.M. McPherson. 1984. Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal psychopaths. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 7: 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Coccaro, E.F. 1998. Impulsive aggression: A behavior in search of clinical definition. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 5: 336–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cooke, D.J., and C. Michie. 1997. An item response theory evaluation of Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist. Psychological Assessment 9: 2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Viding, E., A.P. Jones, P. Frick, T.E. Moffitt, and R. Plomin. 2008. Genetic and phenotypic investigation to early risk factors for conduct problems in children with and without psychopathic tendencies. Developmental Science 11: 17–22.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lilienfeld, S.O., and B.P. Andrews. 1996. Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment 66: 488–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hare, R.D., T. Harpur, R. Hakistan, A. Forth, S. Hart, and J. Newman. 1990. The revised psychopathy checklist: Reliability and factor structure. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2: 338–341.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hare, R.D., and C.S. Neumann. 2006. The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy: Development, structural properties, and new directions. In Handbook of psychopathy, ed. C.J. Patrick, 58–90. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hare, R.D., and C.S. Neumann. 2008. Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 4: 217–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Harris, G., M. Rice, and C. Cormier. 1991. Psychopathy and violent recidivism. Law and Human Behavior 15: 625–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Heilbrun, K., S.D. Hart, R.D. Hare, D. Gustafson, C. Nunez, and A.J. White. 1998. Inpatient and postdischarge aggression in mentally disordered offenders: The role of psychopathy. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 13: 514–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rice, M.E., G.T. Harris, and V.L. Quinsey. 1990. A follow-up of rapists assessed in a maximum security psychiatric facility. Journal of International Violence 5: 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Quinsey, V.L., G.E. Harris, M.E. Rice, and C. Cormier. 1998. Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Webster, C.D., K.S. Douglas, D. Eaves, and S.D. Hart. 1997. HCR-20: Assessing the risk for violence (Version 2). Vancouver: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cooke, D.J., C. Michie, S.D. Hart, and R.D. Hare. 1999. Evaluation of the screening version of the hare psychopathy checklist—revised (PLC:SV): An item response theory analysis. Psychological Assessment 11: 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Edens, J.F., J.L. Skeem, and K.S. Douglas. 2006. Incremental validity analysis of the violence risk appraisal guide and the psychopathy check-list: Screening version in a civil psychiatric sample. Assessment 13(3): 368–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Leistico, A.M., R.T. Salekin, J. DeCoster, and R. Rogers. 2008. A large-scale meta-analysis relating the hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law & Human Behavior 32: 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Veit, R., H. Flor, M. Erb, C. Hermann, M. Lotze, W. Grodd, et al. 2002. Brain circuits involved in emotional learning in antisocial behavior and social phobia in humans. Neuroscience Letters 328(3): 233–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Blair, K.S., A. Leonard, and R.J.R. Blair. 2006. Impaired decision making on the basis of both reward and punishment information in individuals with psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences 41: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Blair, R.J.R., D.G.V. Mithcell, A. Leonard, S. Budhani, K.S. Peschardt, and C. Newman. 2004. Passive avoidance learning in individuals with psychopathy; modulation by reward but not punishment. Personality and Individual Differences 37: 1179–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kiehl, K.A., A.M. Smith, R.D. Hare, A. Mendrek, B.B. Forster, J. Brink, J. Brink, and P.F. Liddle. 2001. Limbic abnormalities inaffective processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry 50(9): 677–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kiehl, K.A., A.M. Smith, A. Mendrek, B.B. Forster, R.D. Hare, and P.F. Liddle. 2004. Temporal lobe abnormalities in semantic processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Psychiatry Research 130(3): 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Harenski, C.L., Harenski, K.A., Shane, M.S., & Kiehl, K. 2010. Aberrant neural processing of moral violations in criminal psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, (in press)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Blair, R.J.R., D.G.V. Mitchell, and K.S. Blair. 2005. The psychopath: Emotion and the brain. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rogers, R.D., M. Lancaster, J. Wakeley, and Z. Bhagwager. 2004. Effects of beta-adrenoceptor blockade on components of human decision making. Psychopharmacology 172(2): 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Strange, B.A., and R.J. Dolan. 2004. Beta-adrenergic modulation of emotional memory-evoked human amygdala and hippocampul responses. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America 101(31): 11454–11458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cima, M., T. Smeets, and M. Jelicic. 2008. Self-reported trauma, cortisol levels, and aggression in psychopathic and non-psychopathic prison inmates. Biological Psychology 78(1): 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Blonigen, D.M., B.M. Hicks, R.F. Krueger, C.J. Patrick, and W.G. Iacono. 2005. Psychopathic personality traits: Heritability and genetic overlap with internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Psychological Medicine 35(5): 637–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Viding, E., A.P. Jones, P. Frick, T.E. Moffitt, and R. Plomin. 2008. Genetic and phenotypic investigation to early risk factors for conduct problems in children with and without psychopathic tendencies. Developmental Science 11: 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Larsson, H., C. Tuvblad, F.V. Rijsdijk, H. Andershed, M. Grann, and P. Lichtenstein. 2007. A common genetic factor explains the association between psychopathic personality and antisocial behavior. Psychological Medicine 37: 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Cases, O., I. Seif, J. Grimsby, P. Gaspar, K. Chen, S. Pournin, et al. 1995. Aggressive behavior and altered amounts of brain serotonin and norepinephrine in mice lacking MAOA. Science 268(5218): 1763–1766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Brunner, H.G., M. Nelen, X.O. Breakefield, H.H. Ropers, and B.A. Van Oost. 1993. Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science 262(5133): 578–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sabol, S.Z., S. Hu, and D. Hamer. 1998. A functional polymorphism in the monoamine oxidase A gene promoter. Human Genetics 103: 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Caspi, A., J. McClay, T.E. Moffitt, J. Mill, J. Martin, I.W. Craig, et al. 2002. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science 297: 851–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ducci, F., T.K. Newman, S. Funt, G.L. Brown, M. Virkkunen, and D. Goldman. 2008. Interaction between a functional MAOA locus and childhood sexual abuse predicts alcoholism and antisocial personality disorder in adult women. Molecular Psychiatry 13: 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Foley, D.L., L.J. Eaves, B. Wormley, J.L. Silberg, H.H. Maes, J. Kuhn, et al. 2004. Childhood adversity, monoamine oxidase a genotype, and risk for conduct disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry 61(7): 738–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Widom, C.S., and L.M. Brzustowicz. 2006. MAOA and the “Cycle of Violence”: Childhood abuse and neglect, MAOA genotype, and risk for violent and antisocial behavior. Biological Psychiatry 60: 684–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kim-Cohen, J., A. Caspi, A. Taylor, B. Williams, R. Newcombe, I.W. Craig, et al. 2006. MAOA, maltreatment, and gene–environment interaction predicting children’s mental health: New evidence and a meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry 11: 903–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Applebaum, P. 2005. Behavioral genetics and the punishment of crime. Psychiatric Services 56(1): 25–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Buckholtz, J.W., and A. Meyer-Lindenberg. 2008. MAOA and the neurogenetic architecture of human aggression. Trends in Neuroscience 31(3): 120–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Moffitt, T. 2005. The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopathology: Gene-environment interplay in antisocial behaviors. Psychological Bulletin 131(4): 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Raine, A. 2002. Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults: A review. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30(5): 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Taylor, A., and J. Kim-Cohen. 2007. Meta-analysis of gene–environment interactions in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology 19: 1029–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Buckholtz, J.W., and A. Meyer-Lindenberg. 2009. Gene-brain associations: The example of MAOA. In The neurobiological basis of violence: Science and rehabilitation, ed. S.H. Hodgins, E. Viding, and A. Plodowski, 265–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Alia-Klein, N., R.Z. Goldstein, D. Tomasi, P.A. Woicik, S.J. Moeller, B. Williams, I.W. Craig, et al. 2009. Neural mechanisms of anger regulation as a function of genetic risk for violence. Emotion 9(3): 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Meyer-Lindenberg, A., J.W. Buckholtz, B. Kolachana, L. Pezawas, G. Blasi, A. Wabnitz, et al. 2006. Neural mechanisms of genetic risk for impulsivity and violence in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America 103(16): 6269–6274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Fan, J., J. Fossella, T. Sommer, Y. Wu, and M.I. Posner. 2003. Mapping the genetic variation of executive attention onto brain activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America 100: 7406–7411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Passamonti, L., F. Fera, A. Magariello, A. Cerasa, M.C. Gioia, M. Muglia, et al. 2006. Monoamine oxidase-A generic variations influence brain activity associated with inhibitory control: New insight into the neural correlates of impulsivity. Biological Psychiatry 59(4): 334–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Norman, K.A., S.M. Polyn, G.J. Detre, and J.V. Haxby. 2006. Beyond mind-reading: Multi-voxel pattern analysis of fMRI data. Trends in Cognitive Science 10: 424–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Haynes, J.D., and G. Rees. 2006. Decoding mental states from brain activity in humans. National Review of Neuroscience 7: 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kay, K.N., T. Naselaris, R.J. Prenger, and J.L. Gallant. 2008. Identifying natural images from human brain activity. Nature 452: 352–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Dosenbach, N.U.F., B. Nardos, A.L. Cohen, D.A. Fair, J.D. Power, J.A. Church, et al. 2010. Prediction of individual maturity using fMRI. Science 329: 1358–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Fan, Y., D. Shen, R. Gur, R. Gur, and C. Davatzikos. 2007. COMPARE: Classification of morphological patterns using adaptive regional elements. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions 26: 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Fan, Y., N. Batmanghelich, C.M. Clark, and C. Davatzikos. 2008. Spatial patterns of brain atrophy in MCI patients, identified via high-dimensional pattern classification, predict subsequent cognitive decline. Neuroimage 39: 1731–1743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Fan, Y., S.M. Resnick, X. Wu, and C. Davatzikos. 2008. Structural and functional biomarkers of prodromal Alzheimer’s disease: A high-dimensional pattern classification study. Neuroimage 41: 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Joshi, S., Karthikeyan, S., Manjunath, B., Grafton, S., Kiehl, K. Anatomical parts-based regression using non-negative matrix factorization. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2010 IEEE Conference on (2010) pp. 2863–2870.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Clark, V.P., G.K. Beatty, R. Anderson, P. Kodituwakku, J. Phillips, K.A. Kiehl, and V.D. Calhoun. 2008. FMRI activity in cingulate and insular cortex predicts relapse in recovering stimulant addicts. Washington: Oral presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Brown, S.L., M.D. St. Amand, and E. Zamble. 2009. The dynamic prediction of criminal recidivism: A three-wave prospective study. Law and Human Behavior 33: 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Andrews, D.A., and J. Bonta. 2006. The psychology of criminal conduct, 4th ed. Cincinnati: Anderson.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Gendreau, P., T. Little, and C. Goggin. 1996. A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology 34: 575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Grove, W.M., D.H. Zald, B.S. Lebow, B.E. Snitz, and C. Nelson. 2000. Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment 12: 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Hanson, R.K., and M.T. Bussiere. 1996. Sex offender risk predictors: A summary of research results. Forum on Corrections Research 8: 10–12.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hanson, R.K., and K. Morton-Bourgon. 2004. Predictors of sexual revidivism: An updated meta-analysis (User Report No. 2004-02). Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Hood, R., S. Shute, M. Feilzer, and A. Wilcox. 2002. Sex offenders emerging from long-term imprisonment: A study of their long-term reconviction rates and of parole board members’ judgments of their risk. British Journal of Criminology 42: 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    McNeil, D.E., D.A. Sandberg, and R.L. Binder. 1998. The relationship between confidence and accuracy in clinical assessment of psychiatric patients’ potential for violence. Law and Human Behavior 22: 655–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Coid, J., M. Yang, S. Ullrich, T. Zhang, S. Sizmur, C. Roberts, D.P. Farrington, and R.D. Rogers. 2009. Gender differences in structured risk assessments: Comparing the accuracy of five instruments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77: 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Monahan, J., H.J. Steadman, P.C. Robbins, P. Appelbaum, S. Banks, T. Grisso, et al. 2005. An actuarial model of violence risk assessment for persons with mental disorders. Psychiatr Serv 56(7): 810–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Skeem, J.L., J.D. Miller, E. Mulvey, J. Tiemann, and J. Monahan. 2005. Using a five-factor lens to explore the relation between personality traits and violence in psychiatric patients. J Consult Clin Psychol 73(3): 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Beecher-Monas, E., & Garcia-Rill, E. 1999. The Law and The Brain: Judging Scientific Evidence of Intent, 1. J. App. Prac. & Process 243.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Beecher-Monas, E. & Garcia-Rill, E. 2003. Danger at the End of Chaos: Predicting Violent Behavior in a Post-Daubert World, 24 Cardozo L. Rev. 1845, 1845–1846.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Giannelli, P. 1993. “Junk Science”: The criminal cases. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 84(1): 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Faigman, D.L., Kaye, D.H., Saks, M.J., & Sanders, J. 2009. Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vols. 105). Thompson West.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Monahan, J. 2000. Violence risk assessment: Scientific validity and evidentiary admissibility. Washington & Lee Law Review, 54, 901–918.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Shuman, D.W., and B.D. Sales. 1998. The admissibility of expert testimony based upon clinical judgment and scientific research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 4: 1226–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Weisberg, D.S., F.C. Keil, J. Goodstein, E. Rawson, and J.R. Gray. 2008. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20: 470–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Logothetis, N.K. 2008. What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature 453: 869–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Poldrack, R.A. 2006. Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(2): 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Slobogin, C., Rai, A., & Reisner, R. 2008. Law and the Mental Health System: Civil and Criminal Aspects, West Publishing (5th ed.).Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Monahan, J. 2006. A Jurisprudence of risk assessment: Forecasting harm among prisoners, predators, and patients. Virginia Law Review 92: 391–434.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Morse, S.J. 1996. Blame and danger: An essay on preventive detention. Boston University Law Review 76: 113–155.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Robinson, P.H. 2001. Punishing dangerousness: Cloaking preventive detention as criminal justice. Harvard Law Review 114: 1429–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Goldberg, L.R. 1968. Simple models or simple processes? American Psychologist 23: 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Grisso, T., and P. Appelbaum. 1992. Structuring the debate about ethical predictions of future violence. Law and Human Behavior 17: 482–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Megargee, E. 1970. The prediction of violence with psychological tests. In Spielberger, C. (Ed.), Current Topics in Clinical and Community Psychology, 97–153.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Nadelhoffer
    • 1
    • 8
  • Stephanos Bibas
    • 2
  • Scott Grafton
    • 3
  • Kent A. Kiehl
    • 4
  • Andrew Mansfield
    • 5
  • Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
    • 6
  • Michael Gazzaniga
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyDickinson CollegeCarlisleUSA
  2. 2.University of Pennsylvania Law SchoolPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara, Santa BarbaraUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of New Mexico & the Mind Research NetworkAlbuquerqueUSA
  5. 5.The Sage Center for the Study of the MindSanta BarbaraUSA
  6. 6.Department of Philosophy & the Kenan Institute for EthicsDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  7. 7.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, & The Sage Center for the Study of the MindSanta BarbaraUSA
  8. 8.The Kenan Institute for EthicsDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations