Questions
Can we predict school or mass shooters?
Can we predict future violence?
Can we predict criminals who will re-offend and return to the criminal justice system?
Author
Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr.
Thirty-five years of speaking for national and state criminal justice agencies. Interviewed multiple times by every national news outlet. Former Senior Specialist for Crime Prevention for the Department of Justice’s clearinghouse. Former Director of Information Services, National Crime Prevention Council. Post-Masters’ Certificate of Advanced Study-Johns Hopkins University.
Editor’s Note
Based on recent publicity about school and mass shootings, or general acts of criminal violence, people are asking why we don’t identify and isolate those involved before violence happens. They believe we can predict future acts and take action. The issue is far more problematic than many suggest.
School and mass shooters are a tiny fraction of America’s violent crime problem, thus the conversation needs to include predictions of community violence. I include those currently under supervision by parole and probation agencies because we are aware of their criminal and psychological histories.
There are endless nuances and opinions when discussing forms of mental illness, evaluations of risk, threats, and violence. There is nothing below that is an exact science, yet people deserve answers to their questions regarding predictions and violence.
Article
Violence occurs and in many cases, those knowing the shooter suggest that they saw it coming. Family, neighbors and police officers understand this.
We know who they are but we can’t do anything about it?
Every time we have a school or mass shooting, psychologists are interviewed stating that you can’t predict who will engage in a school or mass shooting. This is confusing when the shooter showed signs of mental illness or a personality disorder, had access to firearms, and suggested to others that he was contemplating violence.
One of the most important findings in recent research is that violent extremists are “broadcasting what they’re doing if you’re listening,” Crime in America.
But the psychological community insists that the vast majority of people with mental illness or personality disorders do not engage in acts of violence, let alone multiple shooting victims.
Lots of people, including the mentally ill, make statements suggesting violence. “Someone should kick their ass,” said the depressed person with guns in the house. Yet a tiny fraction meeting these criteria act on their statements.
It begs the question as to predicting criminal behavior in general. Is it possible to predict future criminal activity?
Likely to Commit Violent Crimes, But Not Diagnosable
“We know who they are long before they do it. Before people kill, they espouse hatred and blame others for their problems. They are verbally abusive and threatening. They look for the confrontation in every interaction. They deflect kindness. They curse at strangers. They threaten to hurt animals, girlfriends, rivals—and may even do so.”
“We are repelled by their hostility, but at the same time they infuriate us, and we want to strike back. They are offensive and ostracized. Even in the field of mental health, where we strive to suspend judgement to treat the troubled, you might hear: “I’ll tell you his diagnosis—he’s an asshole.”
“There is an identifiable population that is extremely dangerous, volatile, and likely to commit violent crimes, but is not diagnosable as mentally ill,” Slate.Com
Many Criminal Offenders Have Mental Health Issues
Those dealing with the criminal population often describe many as, “Having a chip on their shoulder the size of Montana.” Hostility is often an everyday trait. Many of us believe that it’s related to massive child abuse and neglect, Crime in America.
We’ve known since a 2006 self-report study that more than half of all prison and jail inmates have mental health problems. These estimates represented 56% of state prisoners, 45% of federal prisoners, and 64% of jail inmates.
“Twenty percent of all US adults have some form of mental illness, but very few of them have mental illness that will increase their likelihood of violence,” Slate.Com.
Now a 2017 report states that more than a third (37%) of prisoners had been told by a mental health professional in the past that they had a mental health disorder.
Forty-four percent of jail inmates had been told by a mental health professional in the past that they had a mental health disorder.
Many suggest that the numbers above are an undercount. Many are reluctant to admit to mental health concerns, Crime in America.
Thus while the treatment community correctly states that the vast majority of people with mental illness or a personality disorder will not engage in acts of violence, the data above suggests that some criminal offenders have issues that are possibly predictive.
It also suggests that mental health issues, along with other factors such as criminal history or age of entry into the justice system, do play a role in predicting violent behavior. For example, 54 percent of state prison inmates have current convictions for violent crimes. As one who has looked at hundreds of rap sheets, finding past violent arrests and convictions was not unusual. Violent crimes are often downgraded to a nonviolent crime via plea bargaining.
Violence is part of a criminal lifestyle regardless of the current charge. But there are obvious differences between someone hitting another with a weapon (aggravated assault) versus someone capable of a rage or mass shooting.
US Sentencing Commission-Predicting Future Criminality Via Crime Categories
The US Sentencing Commission studied whether a current crime category and/or criminal history predict recidivism.
As found in previous Commission reports, criminal history category is a strong predictor of recidivism. The analyses show that criminal history points, category, and seriousness of past offenses are strong predictors of recidivism.
The Commission grouped offenders by the number of criminal history points assigned to any single prior conviction and examined the rearrest rates for each group. An offender’s past convictions are assigned one, two, or three points based on the nature of the offense and sentence.
These point assignments are designed to reflect the seriousness of the offense of conviction, with three-point sentences almost always representing a felony conviction.
The analysis indicates that the number of criminal history points assigned to a single prior conviction does predict recidivism. Offenders with more serious offenses in their criminal history had higher rearrest rates than those with less serious sentences.
Rearrest rates range from a low of 30.2 percent of offenders with zero criminal history points to a high of 85.7 percent for offenders with 15 or more criminal history points.
Each additional criminal history point is generally associated with a greater likelihood of recidivism, Crime in America.
The Data on Criminal Offender Risk Instruments
Beyond criminal history, it’s difficult to predict violence and future criminal activity in general. The data on the accuracy of predictive scores, commonly known as risk instruments, is inconclusive. Yet every criminal justice reformer in America states that the use of predictive risk instruments is a vital component of managing the criminal population and figuring out who is likely to re-offend.
There is a stark difference in predicting offenders who need treatment, and who is likely to respond well to treatment, and who has supportive elements in the community, and who is going to commit another criminal or violent act.
A review of risk instruments conducted by the Council of State Governments Justice Center identified no fewer than 66 risk assessment tools, 19 instruments in broad use to assess the risk of recidivism and at least 47 instruments designed for use in specific jurisdictions, CSG Justice Center.
Yet when you go to Crime Soultions.Gov, the definitive evaluative source of the US Department of Justice for impactful programs, there is not one citation for the effectiveness of risk instruments, US Department of Justice.
Returning to the CSG Justice Center’s document, “Studies included in this review reported findings on whether recidivists generally received higher risk estimates than did non-recidivists (known as discrimination). Very few studies reported definitive conclusions on whether those offenders who were identified as being at high risk for recidivism went on to recidivate during the specified follow up period or whether those offenders who were identified as low risk did not recidivate (known as calibration).”
In another study, “Results…show, however, that the power of some risk assessment instruments to accurately classify offenders by risk level may have been overestimated,” A Comparison of Risk Instruments.
Thus risk instruments, regardless of their integral role in managing the offender population, are problematic (ineffective?) in predicting criminal behavior. Most media reports on offender assessments are negative, see Christian Science Monitor.
Science News (edited or selected for readability-most of what follows are direct quotes)
Science News offers an article below about mass shootings and places the shooters and proposed solutions into context. It’s an excellent examination of the issues. I urge all readers to read the entire article.
Whatever We Think We Know About School Or Mass Shootings Is Either Sheer Speculation Or Wrong
Immediately after a 19-year-old shot and killed 17 people and wounded 17 others at a Florida high school on Valentine’s Day, people leaped to explain what had caused the latest mass slaughter.
By now, it’s a familiar drill: Too many readily available guns. Too much untreated mental illness. Too much warped masculinity. Don’t forget those shoot-’em-up video games and movies. Add (or repeat, with voice raised) your own favorite here.
Now the national debate has received an invigorated dose of activism. But a big problem haunts the justifiable outrage over massacres of innocents going about their daily affairs: Whatever we think we know about school shootings, or mass public shootings in general, is either sheer speculation or wrong. A science of mass shootings doesn’t exist.
Perhaps this dearth of data is no surprise. Some of these researchers assume that whatever causes people to commit any form of murder explains mass shootings. Others regard mass killings as driven by severe mental disorders, thus falling outside the realm of crime studies.
Rocque and Duwe published a review of what’s known about reasons for mass public shootings, sometimes called rampage shootings, in the February Current Opinion in Psychology. Their conclusion: not much. Scientific ignorance on this issue is especially concerning given that Rocque and Duwe describe a slight, but not unprecedented, recent uptick in the national rate of rampage shootings.
There is No Good Evidence on What Differentiates a Bitter, Aggrieved Man From a Bitter, Aggrieved and Dangerous Man
No good evidence exists that either limiting or loosening gun access would reduce mass shootings, Rocque says. Virtually no research has examined whether a federal ban on assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 contributed to the relatively low rate of mass public shootings during that period. The same questions apply to concealed-carry laws…”
Mental illness also demands closer scrutiny, Duwe says. Of 160 mass public shooters from 1915 to 2013, about 60 percent had been assigned a psychiatric diagnosis or had shown signs of serious mental illness before the attack, Duwe has found. In general, mental illness is not linked to becoming violent. But, he says, many mass shooters are tormented and paranoid individuals who want to end their painful lives after evening the score with those they feel have wronged them.
Although school shooters often report feeling a desperate need to make up for having been inadequate as men, many factors contribute to their actions, argues clinical psychologist Peter Langman. Based in Allentown, Pa., Langman has interviewed and profiled several dozen school shooters in the United States and other countries.
There is no good evidence on what differentiates a bitter, aggrieved man from a bitter, aggrieved and dangerous man. Science News
Conclusions
First and foremost, if you have knowledge of anyone suggesting violence, and you believe the threat is credible, you need to immediately report it to law enforcement.
Predicting who will commit a mass or school shooting or violence in the community and responding is possible, but it’s filled with complex research limitations, constitutional and legal issues.
It’s much easier for the adjudicated population as to predicting future criminal reoffending, some of which will be violent. Violent acts are a small percentage of overall crime.
Mental illness or personality disorders by themselves are not good predictors. Risk instruments are equally problematic as to predicting future criminality.
You can, however, make reasonably accurate predictions regarding future criminality based on criminal history and certain types of crimes.
We know that those who engage in acts of violence broadcast their intentions. School administrators, neighbors, and police officers know who has a high probability of future violence based on their acts of aggression, domestic violence, and personality disorders.
Regardless as to the issue of an accurate diagnosis, the question for society and the justice system is whether we have the staffing and capacity to identify and monitor high-risk individuals (including their social media pages) and place them in treatment before their actions get worse.
For example, most parole and probation agencies don’t monitor social media pages of offenders when we know that they are filled with references to sexual abuse, violence against women, guns, and drugs.
The practical, staffing, legal, fiscal and constitutional questions are profound.
Contact
Contact us at crimeinamerica@gmail.com.
Media on deadline, use leonardsipes@gmail.com.
My book: “Amazon Hot New Release”- “A Must Have Book,” Success With The Media: Everything You Need To Survive Reporters and Your Organization available at Amazon
This is an ad-free website.
Reviews are appreciated.