132 5 Court and the Legal System—Adult ForensicsIn genera], more empirical data are called for on the uses of psychological tests
in forensic evaluations; which are more effective and with which type of evalua-
tion? The many differences between the fields of psychology and law should be
continually explored to better prepare forensic psychologists for entry into legal
settings.
RISK ASSESSMENT
Introduction
Mental health professionals who work in the arena of forensic psychology are often
asked to conduct risk-assessment evaluations. This type of assessment involves mak-
ing predictions about an individual's likelihood of engaging in future violence. In
the criminal justice system, the sentencing hearing is a particularly common time
for the court to ask a psychologist to generate an opinion as to an individuals risk
for reoffending. In this regard, a psychologist serving as an expert for the court can
have a significant influence on the sentence imposed. With a consistent movement
toward a more stringent application of the retributive process in the criminal justice
system, risk assessments have been utilized more and more frequently in the United
States court systems. However, there are a number of very serious issues involved
in risk assessment that need to be addressed. Of utmost concern is the lack of accu-
racy with which psychologists are able to predict future violent behavior. In many
instances, a clinician's opinion regarding an individual's likelihood of committing
future violence is no better than chance. Based on such knowledge, research in
the area of risk assessment is currently focusing on how to improve the predictive
models of violence which are utilized by clinicians in making such predictions. The
constitutionality of risk assessment, as well as the crucial role that psychologists play
in making such predictions, has been examined in such landmark cases as Barefoot r.
Estelie (1983). The following case illustration summarizes this case as well as the
findings by the court.
Thomas Barefoot was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by a
jury who based their opinion largely on the expert testimony of two psychiatrists. During
Mr. Barefoot's sentencing hearing, the jury was instructed to consider whether "there
is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would
constitute a continuing threat to society.'' If the jury found that such a probability existed,
they were required to impose the death penalty on Mr. Barefoot. The jury listened
to testimony by two psychiatrists, each of whom offered predictions as to Barefoot's
likelihood tor engaging in future violence. The conclusions by the two psychiatrists that
Mr. Barefoot would continue to commit violent acts it he was not executed, assisted the
jury in delivering their decision that Mr. Barefoot did indeed deserve the death penalty.
Mr. Barefoot challenged the constitutionality of risk assessment in a appeal to the
United States Supreme Court. He argued that the expert testimonies of the psychiatrists
were based on unreliable predictions. However, one of the psychiatrists who provided