Violence: To Predict in Order to Prevent?

Violence is a social problem. Violence is also a public health problem. However, violence can be “cut” several ways; its definition varies by type of violence. As such, the theories, which seek to understand violence, differ—as do the methods advocated for its eradication (or at least its reduction). These points could not be made any more evident by the reading of these two disparate books, one on violence prediction and one on its prevention. In this review each book is first discussed separately, and then directly compared. There remains no consensus on how best to predict violence. Yet mental health professionals are called upon to know the likelihood that violent offenders will commit a new violent offense. Violent Offenders strongly advocates for an actuarial assessment approach to predicting violence recidivism ranging from common assault to multiple murders. Empirical support is provided for such an approach with research findings available from the maximum security Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre, Penetonguishene. The book, a compilation of 35 years of work, is broken down into four parts. In the first section, the authors discuss history and background in order to point to the necessity of actuarial risk appraisal instruments. Actuarial instruments involve a limited set of static and historical factors (age, marital status, characteristics of the offense) as predictors of violence. After a review of research on three types of offenders (mentally disordered offender, sex offenders, and fire setters) in the second section, the authors describe their development of violence prediction instruments, which are further detailed in the appendices. Such development was in response to their realization that one tool applicable to all offenders for whom courts, clinicians, and parole officials had to make predictive decisions was needed. The final section deals with altering risk of violence and includes concluding comments. This second edition of Violent Offenders moves beyond the clinical recommendations from its first publication. Provocatively, the authors argue that incorporating actuarial methods into existing clinical practice is not enough. Here, they press for the total replacement of existing practice with these actuarial methods. This view challenges traditional clinical training approaches and indeed the reader may feel challenged. The book’s plea is stated in the context of the repeated argument that clinical judgment is overused and faulty, and that by mixing the two approaches (actuarial and clinical judgment) the prediction of violence is worse than with either one alone. This edition does provide an alternate place for clinical judgment by insisting that “circumstances that tempt one to adjust an actuarial score should instead be considered separately in adjusting supervision and providing interventions to reduce risk” (p. 198). This new volume also includes a revised scoring procedure for the actuarial assessment. The actuarial method is not without its critics. For instance, two arguments against these methods hinge on the approach’s exclusion of social forces outside of individuals’ control (e.g., poverty, discrimination) as predictors of Sex Roles (2007) 57:471–473 DOI 10.1007/s11199-007-9265-6