scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers by "John Monahan published in 2015"


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors synthesize the existing evidence base on the individual risk assessment of terrorism, focusing critical attention on recent developments in the identification of valid risk factors, including ideologies, affiliations, grievances, moral emotions, and identities.
Abstract: This chapter synthesizes the existing evidence base on the individual risk assessment of terrorism, focusing critical attention on recent developments in the identification of valid risk factors. The most promising candidates for such risk factors identified here include ideologies, affiliations, grievances, moral emotions, and identities. Risk factors for lone-actor terrorism may diverge significantly from those for group-based terrorism. The chapter also reflects on what must happen if research on the risk assessment of terrorism is to yield knowledge that is actionable in the context of national security, i.e., the use of case-control, known-groups research designs.

42 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: When public perceptions and policies regarding mental illness are shaped by highly publicized but infrequent instances of gun violence toward strangers, they are unlikely to help people with mental illnesses or to improve public safety.
Abstract: Objective:Highly publicized incidents in which people with apparent mental illnesses use guns to victimize strangers have important implications for public views of people with mental illnesses and the formation of mental health and gun policy. The study aimed to provide more data about this topic.Methods:MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study data were analyzed to determine the prevalence of violence by 951 patients after discharge from a psychiatric hospital, including gun violence, violence toward strangers, and gun violence toward strangers.Results:Two percent of patients committed a violent act involving a gun, 6% committed a violent act involving a stranger, and 1% committed a violent act involving both a gun and a stranger.Conclusions:When public perceptions and policies regarding mental illness are shaped by highly publicized but infrequent instances of gun violence toward strangers, they are unlikely to help people with mental illnesses or to improve public safety.

41 citations


Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors reconceptualize gatekeeping analysis in scientific evidence cases based on the nature of science itself, specifically, the division between general and case-specific scientific findings.
Abstract: Fundamental to all evidence rules is the division of responsibility between the judge, who determines the admissibility of evidence, and the jury, which gauges its weight. In most evidence contexts, such as hearsay and character, threshold admissibility obligations are clear and relatively uncontroversial. The same is not true for scientific evidence. The complex nature of scientific inference, and in particular the challenges of reasoning from group data to individual cases, has bedeviled courts. As a result, courts vary considerably on how they define the judge’s gatekeeping task under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and its state equivalents. This article seeks to reconceptualize gatekeeping analysis in scientific evidence cases based on the nature of science itself, specifically, the division between general and case-specific scientific findings. Because expert testimony describing basic science, “framework” science, and the scientific methods an expert uses to reach his or her conclusions transcend the case-at-hand, the validity of these preliminary facts ought to be determined by the judge. In contrast, when an expert claims to have used a methodology approved by the judge but there is a dispute as to whether he or she in fact did so, the question becomes one of credibility specific to the case, and is for the jury. This division between general and case-specific preliminary facts is simpler to administer than other admissibility/weight frameworks, which have relied primarily on problematic attempts to distinguish scientific methods from scientific conclusions. It is also fully consistent with, and helps implement, basic principles of both constitutional and evidentiary jurisprudence by ensuring that the trial judge — presumptively better attuned to matters of general import — decides reliability issues, while the jury — historically viewed as trier of the facts — is the ultimate arbiter of those case-specific matters requiring a credibility assessment. Because the general-specific divide likewise argues for a stiff standard of appellate review on scientific reliability issues, our alignment of evidence law with the nature of scientific research also provides the best court-monitored mechanism for ensuring that courtroom use of science is both sophisticated and consistent across cases.

14 citations


Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors tested whether lay individuals share their sentiment and found that very few participants would support imposing shorter sentences for old vs young offenders, female vs male offenders and white vs black offenders, all else being equal.
Abstract: The incarceration of criminal offenders in the United States has reached epidemic proportions. One way to scale back the prison population is by using empirical risk assessment methods to apportion prison sentences based on the likelihood of the offender recidivating, so-called “evidence-based sentencing.” This practice has been denounced by some legal scholars, who claim that the use of certain empirically-relevant risk factors — including gender, age, and race — is plainly immoral. This study tested whether lay individuals share their sentiment. Over 600 participants weighted to be representative of the United States population were asked about the extent to which they would support imposing shorter sentences for old vs young offenders, female vs male offenders, and white vs black offenders, all else being equal. The results indicate that very few participants (

1 citations