Science For Predicting Violence & Dangerousness
By M. Beall Mitchell
According to Martha Lenderman, a Florida specialist in the application process for psychiatric examinations, the rights of the individual must be balanced with the right and responsibility of the state to protect the individual and others from harm.
In 2003, licensed psychologist Holli Bodner, used part of the involuntary commitment process to subject her neighbor to confinement in a mental hospital. On March 14, 2005 she was convicted of perjury for making false statements on an application for a psychiatric examination, according to prosecutor Darlene Ragoonanan of the Manatee County State Attorney‘s Office (FL).
|
Based on Ken Kesey's novel, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, the 1975 film starring Jack Nicholson as psychiatric patient Randall P. McMurphy, depicted abuse of power in mental hospitals. |
Doris Busch Boskey admitted she lied about her son attacking her husband in order to make him appear dangerous, a requirement for involuntarily commitment to a mental hospital (New York Times, Sept 3rd, 1999.) In both cases, authorities were duped by false witnesses who later admitted lying.
So how easy is it to have someone committed? According to attorney Jim Gottstein of Psychrights, a non-profit organization protecting the rights of those labeled mentally ill, the involuntary commitment process is a sham, alleged dangerousness is a pretext for commitment, and victims of the process are routinely denied constitutional rights.
According to an article on the Psychrights website, “Involuntary ‘treatment’ in the United States largely operates illegally in that court orders for forced treatment are obtained without actual compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements.”
Attorney Gottstein said that to confine someone to a mental hospital there must be an “opinion” of potential dangerousness and the “label” of a mental disorder. Furthermore, he said no supporting evidence is required to predict the future violence or dangerousness.
So, in the vast majority of cases, if the psychiatrist predicts future dangerousness, the defendant is confined to a mental institution. Decisions are based on the expert testimony of psychiatrists, who often give nothing more than opinion, without corresponding scientific evidence. Gottstein said that lawyers representing the accused rarely challenge this assumption.
The American Psychiatric Association, in two Amicus Briefs filed with the Supreme Court of the U.S. and the Supreme Court of CA, contain the following sworn statements:
- “… study after study has shown that this fond hope of the capacity accurately to predict violence in advance is simply not fulfilled.”
- “…[APA] Task Force on Clinical Aspects of the Violent Individual reported: Neither psychiatrists nor anyone else have reliably demonstrated an ability to predict future violence or ‘dangerousness’...”
- “No special psychiatric ‘expertise’ in this area been established.”
- “Research in the area of dangerous behavior…is practically non-existent…If the psychiatrist or any other behavioral scientist were asked to show proof of his predictive skills, objective data could not be offered.”
- “…predictions of future behavior characterized as ‘medical opinions’ serve only to distort the fact-finding process.”
Apparently the mental “expert” problem, reliance on state paid psychiatric testimony in the commitment process, has grown to such proportions that it appears outrageous and ludicrous.
That point is made clear by New Mexico State Senator Duncan Scott’s proposed legislative amendment addressing the state’s licensing guidelines for psychiatrists and psychologists:
“When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant’s competency hearing, the bill read, ‘The psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts.... shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches [long], and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand… the bailiff shall dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong.”
While the NM Senate approved the ‘wizard amendment’ and it cleared the House, the legislation was vetoed by Governor Johnson.
How could citizens with no history of violence be committed based on unfounded expert opinions only? Attorney Gottstein said victims rarely receive legal representation that meets professional and ethical standards.
According to a New York Law School professor, Michael Perlin, the lawyers appointed to represent psychiatric defendants are not doing their jobs. “The assumption that individuals facing involuntary civil commitments are globally represented by adequate counsel is an assumption of a fact not in evidence. The fact is that in many jurisdictions such counsel is woefully inadequate—disinterested, uninformed, roleless, and often hostile.”
Steve Natoli, counsel for NY State Senator Morahan (Chairman of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Committee), said he could not comment at this time. State Assemblyman Rivera was contacted but was unavailable for comment. State statutes are available at public libraries.
Henry J. Steadman of Policy Research Associates of Delmar, NY, is an author and researcher in the field of psychiatric predictions of dangerousness. He said current level of accuracy of expert predictions based on actuarial assessments was similar to “tossing a coin at best”. Thousands are held against their will, or force medicated under Kendra's Law, based on less accurate predictions and less credibility.
Decision makers who assume a proven, scientifically accurate basis for such predictions are misinformed. John Morahan in ‘The Clinical Prediction of Violent Behavior’ said “...the best (clinical) methods produce erroneous predictions of dangerousness two out of three times.” Shari Seidman Diamond et al., stated, “Only when a government expert admitted that he might be wrong two out of three times did study subjects tend to change their minds.” How many nonviolent people are committed based largely on inaccurate expert predictions every year? The actual number is unknown.
| 
