Don't confuse me with the facts - Common errors in violence risk assessment at capital sentencing

The life and death context of a capital risk assessment requires a comprehe nsive forensic evaluation. Mental health professionals routinely testify re garding future dangerousness in capital proceedings but too often limit ass essment to DSM-IV diagnoses and criminal history without integrating empiri cal and actuarial data from other sources. Given the grave magnitude of a c apital risk assessment both for the defendant and society, methodological a nd conceptual errors of this type must be avoided. This article will descri be violence risk-assessment errors made by mental health professionals test ifying at capital sentencing. Observed errors include inadequate reliance o n base rates, failure to consider context, susceptibility to illusory corre lation, failure to define severity of violence, overreliance on clinical in terview, misapplication of psychological testing, exaggerated implications of antisocial personality disorder, ignoring the effects of aging, misuse o f patterns of behavior, neglect of preventive measures, insufficient data, and failure to express the risk estimate in probabilistic terms.