The role of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide and Historical, Clinical, Risk-20 in U.S. courts: A case law survey

Michael J Vitacco, Steven K. Erickson, Samantha Kurus, Brian Neil Apple

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the landmark case Barefoot v. Estelle (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that behavioral scientists are not "incompetent to predict with an acceptable degree of reliability that a particular criminal will commit other crimes in the future, and so represent a danger to the community." The Court held to this opinion, even in light of evidence that mental health practitioners were incorrect in their violence predictions two out of three times. Although Barefoot focused on a death penalty case, the dicta of the decision was extensive and broadly implicated all types of risk assessment. The decision in Barefoot had a positive effect by focusing professional attention and research efforts on violence prediction. Eventually, specialized measures were developed to assist in violence prediction. Measures such as the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993) and the Historical-Clinical-Risk 20 (HCR-20; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998) are now frequently used in clinical and forensic settings throughout the United States and Canada. This article presents case law data from 46 cases on the VRAG and/or HCR-20 found in a legal database search of published and unpublished court cases in Federal and State jurisdictions across the United States. A summary of these cases is presented along with legal and policy implications for using these specialized risk assessment instruments in various legal proceedings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)361-391
Number of pages31
JournalPsychology, Public Policy, and Law
Volume18
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2012

Fingerprint

case law
Violence
violence
risk assessment
Supreme Court Decisions
Capital Punishment
legal proceedings
death penalty
Crime
Canada
Supreme Court
jurisdiction
Mental Health
mental health
offense
Databases
Surveys and Questionnaires
Research
community
evidence

Keywords

  • Legal proceedings
  • Risk assessment
  • VRAG, HCR-20

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

The role of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide and Historical, Clinical, Risk-20 in U.S. courts : A case law survey. / Vitacco, Michael J; Erickson, Steven K.; Kurus, Samantha; Apple, Brian Neil.

In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 18, No. 3, 01.08.2012, p. 361-391.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fef7309dca6f4355bdb7ce5f320f3ff8,
title = "The role of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide and Historical, Clinical, Risk-20 in U.S. courts: A case law survey",
abstract = "In the landmark case Barefoot v. Estelle (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that behavioral scientists are not {"}incompetent to predict with an acceptable degree of reliability that a particular criminal will commit other crimes in the future, and so represent a danger to the community.{"} The Court held to this opinion, even in light of evidence that mental health practitioners were incorrect in their violence predictions two out of three times. Although Barefoot focused on a death penalty case, the dicta of the decision was extensive and broadly implicated all types of risk assessment. The decision in Barefoot had a positive effect by focusing professional attention and research efforts on violence prediction. Eventually, specialized measures were developed to assist in violence prediction. Measures such as the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993) and the Historical-Clinical-Risk 20 (HCR-20; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998) are now frequently used in clinical and forensic settings throughout the United States and Canada. This article presents case law data from 46 cases on the VRAG and/or HCR-20 found in a legal database search of published and unpublished court cases in Federal and State jurisdictions across the United States. A summary of these cases is presented along with legal and policy implications for using these specialized risk assessment instruments in various legal proceedings.",
keywords = "Legal proceedings, Risk assessment, VRAG, HCR-20",
author = "Vitacco, {Michael J} and Erickson, {Steven K.} and Samantha Kurus and Apple, {Brian Neil}",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/a0025834",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "361--391",
journal = "Psychology, Public Policy, and Law",
issn = "1076-8971",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The role of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide and Historical, Clinical, Risk-20 in U.S. courts

T2 - A case law survey

AU - Vitacco, Michael J

AU - Erickson, Steven K.

AU - Kurus, Samantha

AU - Apple, Brian Neil

PY - 2012/8/1

Y1 - 2012/8/1

N2 - In the landmark case Barefoot v. Estelle (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that behavioral scientists are not "incompetent to predict with an acceptable degree of reliability that a particular criminal will commit other crimes in the future, and so represent a danger to the community." The Court held to this opinion, even in light of evidence that mental health practitioners were incorrect in their violence predictions two out of three times. Although Barefoot focused on a death penalty case, the dicta of the decision was extensive and broadly implicated all types of risk assessment. The decision in Barefoot had a positive effect by focusing professional attention and research efforts on violence prediction. Eventually, specialized measures were developed to assist in violence prediction. Measures such as the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993) and the Historical-Clinical-Risk 20 (HCR-20; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998) are now frequently used in clinical and forensic settings throughout the United States and Canada. This article presents case law data from 46 cases on the VRAG and/or HCR-20 found in a legal database search of published and unpublished court cases in Federal and State jurisdictions across the United States. A summary of these cases is presented along with legal and policy implications for using these specialized risk assessment instruments in various legal proceedings.

AB - In the landmark case Barefoot v. Estelle (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that behavioral scientists are not "incompetent to predict with an acceptable degree of reliability that a particular criminal will commit other crimes in the future, and so represent a danger to the community." The Court held to this opinion, even in light of evidence that mental health practitioners were incorrect in their violence predictions two out of three times. Although Barefoot focused on a death penalty case, the dicta of the decision was extensive and broadly implicated all types of risk assessment. The decision in Barefoot had a positive effect by focusing professional attention and research efforts on violence prediction. Eventually, specialized measures were developed to assist in violence prediction. Measures such as the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993) and the Historical-Clinical-Risk 20 (HCR-20; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998) are now frequently used in clinical and forensic settings throughout the United States and Canada. This article presents case law data from 46 cases on the VRAG and/or HCR-20 found in a legal database search of published and unpublished court cases in Federal and State jurisdictions across the United States. A summary of these cases is presented along with legal and policy implications for using these specialized risk assessment instruments in various legal proceedings.

KW - Legal proceedings

KW - Risk assessment

KW - VRAG, HCR-20

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84874685599&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84874685599&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/a0025834

DO - 10.1037/a0025834

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84874685599

VL - 18

SP - 361

EP - 391

JO - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

JF - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

SN - 1076-8971

IS - 3

ER -