The assessment of potential threat: A second look

  • Joseph Davis


The assessment of dangerousness is not a diagnosis, but rather a clinical impression based on the individual's past history of violence and many other factors. With regard to the mental state, it has been noted that “the essence of dangerousness appears to be a paucity of concern for others'” (Roth, 1974). As a subjective opinion, predicting violence and future dangerousness bears the weight of much scrutiny and due diligence. Threat assessment evaluations have inherent social and legal ramifications, and the responsibility must be accepted with the knowledge that accuracy may not always be achieved. This paper discusses the various aspects of predicting future violence and dangerousness and the caveats that come with such tasks.


Violent Behavior Criminal Psychology Reasonable Care Threat Assessment Future Violence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bower, B. (1984, June 9). Predicting Dangerousness: Future Imperfect.Science News. 365–367.Google Scholar
  2. Davis, J., Siota, R. L., & Stewart, L. M. (1999). Future Prediction of Dangerousness and Violent Behavior: Psychological Indicators and Considerations for Conducting an Assessment of Potential Threat.Canadian Journal of Clinical Medicine, 6(3), 52–59.Google Scholar
  3. Decisions of the Supreme Court. [On-line]. Found onsite at this location: Scholar
  4. Dershowitz, A. (1968, Feb.–Mar.). Psychiatry in the Legal Process: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways.Trial, 4, 29–31.Google Scholar
  5. Fleming, J. G. & Maximov, B. (1974). The Patient or His Victim The Therapist's Dilemma.California Law Review. 62, 1025–1068.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldman, H. H. (1984). Forensic Psychiatry.Textbook of General Psychiatry. Lang Medical Publishing. 887–898.Google Scholar
  7. Hyde, M. O. & Forsyth, E. H. (1991).The Violent Mind New York: Franklin Watts.Google Scholar
  8. Monahan, J. (1985). Evaluating Potentially Violent Persons.Psychology, Psychiatry and the Law. In Charles P. Ewing (Editor). Professional Resource Exchange, Boca Raton, 9–39.Google Scholar
  9. People v. Burnick (1975). 14C. 3d 306–337.Google Scholar
  10. Roth, A. (1974). What Can We Predict.Task Force Report, American Psychiatric Association on Dangerousness. 1–6. U. S. Government Printing.Google Scholar
  11. Slovenko. (1960). Psychiatry and a Second Look at the Medical Privilege.Wayne Law Review, 6, 175.Google Scholar
  12. Steadman, H. J. (1991). From Dangerousness to Risk Assessment: Implications for Appropriate Research Strategies.Criminality of Mentally Disordered Persons. 39–49.Google Scholar
  13. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California. (1976). 17 C.3d. 425–464.Google Scholar
  14. Vatz, R. E. & Weinberg, L. S. (1989, November). The Arrogance of Predicting Dangerousness.USA Today, 62–63.Google Scholar
  15. Wallace, S. (1995).Prediction of Violence. Unpublished research, San Diego: Author.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Davis
    • 1
  1. 1.California State University at San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations