Back to basics: A critical analysis of dangerousness research in a new legal environment.

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The introduction of a dangerousness standard for civil commitment over the last 15 years has fueled considerable concern regarding the proper role for the mental health professional in this exercise of state power. Research and debate regarding this question has focused overwhelmingly on the low validity of dangerousness predictions, and calls for the abolition of this standard have arisen from several camps. Recently, however, a growing number of commentators have proposed an ameliorationist position, arguing that it is impossible for mental health professionals to avoid the task of assessing and managing dangerousness, and that the field must develop techniques for doing it better, rather than insisting that it cannot be done. This paper argues that establishment of a descriptive research base in this area has been generally overlooked, but that such knowledge is necessary in order to assess the feasibility of the ameliorationist position.

This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit: