Risk Assessment 133a risk assessment claimed that the accuracy of his prediction was "100% and absolute."
Mr. Barefoot lost his appeal and the presiding Justice White stated that "the likelihood
of a defendant committing further crimes is a constitutionally acceptable criterion for
imposing the death penalty." (Btirefoot i>. ten-lie, 1983, p. 880)Literature Review
The case of Barefoot v. Estcllc (1983) has repeatedly been used to illustrate the
strength of the influence that psychological testimony has on jurors regarding an
individual's perceived risk. While the controversy surrounding the accuracy of risk
assessment remains unabated among psychologists and criminologists, certain issues
are agreed upon by the vast majority of experts who research and conduct risk
assessments. One such issue is that predictions of dangerousness are never 100%
accurate. Thus, the psychiatrist who offered an expert opinion in Barefoot v. Estcllc
was misleading jurors at best and perhaps not only made an inaccurate statement,
but also an unethical one. This has serious implications given that mental health
professionals who provide expert testimony in court regarding a risk assessment carry
a great deal of weight in terms of the eventual sentence delivered (Melton ct a!.,
1997).
John Monahan, a leading expert on violence prediction, has examined the con-
cept of risk assessment over the past 2 decades in order to offer some insight as to
where this controversial issue is headed in the future (Monahan, 1996). He suggests
that years ago, the controversy was centered around the constitutionality of risk
assessment. As illustrated by several cases, however, the courts have determined that
regardless of the accuracy of the predictions, risk assessments will continue to be
allowed in court (Barefoot v, Estcllc, 1983; Schall v. Martin, 1984; United States v.
Salerno, 1987). With this in mind, Monahan states that rather than focusing on
whether clinicians can make accurate predictions about violence, the focus has
now shifted to researching ways in which the clinical models of prediction can be
improved.
Research has suggested that one way in which the predictive models of future
violence can be improved is to use actuarial data as the premise for the predic-
tion as opposed to clinical opinion. M. Miller and Morris (1988) state that clinical
prediction is based on professional training and experience, whereas actuarial pre-
diction is based on statistical models used to determine the commonalities between
a particular individual and others with similar characteristics who have engaged
in violent behavior. Research has consistently shown that actuarial methods are
far more sophisticated in terms of predicting risk than clinical methods (McGrath,
1991; Milner & Campbell, 1995). As noted by McGrath (1991), "it is imperative
that decisions that can affect the liberty of offenders and the safety of the commu-
nity are based not only on clinical experience but on empirical findings as well"
(p. 331). However, limitations have also been noted with the use of actuarial data.
For instance, the court system often has difficulty understanding information that