Abstract
The (Sorensen and Pilgrim, An actuarial risk assessment of violence posed by capital murder defendants. J Crim Law Criminol 90:1251–1270, 2000) actuarial model was developed to predict institutional violence among life-sentenced 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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Although still widely used in the vernacular of capital punishment, some (Cunningham 2006) have argued that ‘dangerousness’ is a largely useless, non-quantifiable legal term, which statutes and case law have done little to define. In this paper, given that capital defendants in the vast majority of jurisdictions who are not put to death will receive life without parole sentences or long life with parole sentences, it is our assumption that ‘society’ represents the prison setting.
Based on this definition, which is consistent with the TDCJ official guidelines, such ‘nuisance’ behaviors as throwing urine or other bodily substances on others constitute an assaultive disciplinary offense (e.g., a Code 3, Assaulting an Officer). In order to account for this, this category of violence was further divided based on the degree of potential harm involved. Specifically, minor assaultive behavior was coded as either minor contact assaults with potential for injury (e.g., fighting or assaulting another with or without a weapon, throwing large objects) and minor nuisance assaults (e.g., throwing bodily substances, food, or small objects).
No homicides were committed; therefore, this category will not be included in further tables.
Until the late 1990s, despite being housed in a separate wing from the rest of general population, death row inmates were allowed considerable latitude to be outside their cells, including holding work-eligible status (e.g., some even worked as trustees). However, immediately following a death row escape in November, 1998, death row was placed into security lockdown status. Shortly thereafter, permanent lockdown was formally imposed, in which inmates remain in their cells 23 hours per day and experience minimal contact with correctional officers and/or inmates.
References
American Psychiatric Association (1974) Clinical aspects of the violent individual. Author, Washington, D.C.
American Psychological Association Task Force (1978) Report of the task force on the role of psychology in the criminal justice system. Am Psychol 33:1099–1113
Barefoot v. Estelle (1983) 463 U.S. 880
Blume JH, Garvey SP, Johnson SL (2001) Future dangerousness in capital cases: always “at issue”. Cornell Law Rev 86:397–410
Borum R (1996) Improving the clinical practice of violence risk assessment: technology, guidelines, and training. Am Psychol 51:945–956
Cunningham MD (2006) Dangerousness and death: a nexus in search of science and reason. Am Psychol 61:828–839
Cunningham MD, Goldstein AM (2003) Sentencing determinations in death penalty cases. In: Weiner IB (Series Ed.), Goldstein A (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of psychology, vol. 11. Forensic psychology. Wiley, New York, pp. 407–436
Cunningham MD, Reidy TJ (1999) Don’t confuse me with the facts: common errors in violence risk assessment at capital sentencing. Crim Justice Behav 26:20–43
Cunningham MD, Reidy TJ (2002) Violence risk assessment at federal capital sentencing: Individualization, generalization, relevance, and scientific standards. Crim Justice Behav 29:512–537
Cunningham MD, Sorensen JR, Reidy TJ (2005) An actuarial model for assessment of prison violence risk among maximum security inmates. Assessment 12:40–49
Edens JF, Petrila J, Buffington-Vollum JK (2001) Psychopathy and the death penalty: can the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised identify offenders who represent “a continuing threat to society”? J Psych Law 29:433–481
Edens JF, Buffington-Vollum JK, Keilen A, Roskamp P, Anthony C (2005) Predictions of future dangerousness in capital murder trials: is it time to “disinvent the wheel”? Law Hum Behav 29:55–86
Koretz DM (1979) Validity shrinkage in psychopathology research: An example of the need for caution. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 88:328–333
Krauss DA, Lee DH (2003) Deliberating on dangerousness and death: jurors’ ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. Int J Law Psychiatry 26:113–137
Krauss DA, Sales BD (2001) The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychol, Public Policy Law 7:267–306
Marquart JW, Sorensen JR (1988) Institutional and postrelease behavior of Furman-commuted inmates in Texas. Criminology 26:677–693
Marquart JW, Sorensen JR (1989) A national study of the Furman-commuted inmates: assessing the threat to society from capital offenders. Loyola Los Angel Law Rev 23:5–28
Marquart JW, Ekland-Olson S, Sorensen JR (1994) The rope, the chair, and the needle: capital punishment in Texas, 1923–1990. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX
Monahan J (1981) Predicting violent behavior: an assessment of clinical techniques. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA
Monahan J et al (2005) An actuarial model of violence risk assessment for persons with mental disorders. Psychiatr Serv 56:810–815
Penry v. Lynaugh (1989) 492 U.S. 302
Reidy TJ, Cunningham MD, Sorensen JR (2001) From death to life: Prison behavior of former death row inmates in Indiana. Crim Justice Behav 28:62–82
Sorensen JR, Pilgrim RL (2000) An actuarial risk assessment of violence posed by capital murder defendants. J Crim Law Criminol 90:1251–1270
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buffington-Vollum, J.K., Edens, J.F. & Keilen, A. Predicting Institutional Violence among Death Row Inmates: The Utility of the Sorensen and Pilgrim Model. J Police Crim Psych 23, 16–22 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-008-9016-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-008-9016-9