DEFINITIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS AND PREDICTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS ARE INEVITABLY SUBJECTIVE. ASSUMING, HOWEVER, THAT A CONSENSUS COULD BE REACHED ON A DEFINITION OF DANGEROUSNESS, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC MEANS FOR PREDICTING WHETHER OR NOT A PARTICULAR PERSON WILL IN THE NEAR FUTURE ENGAGE IN THAT BEHAVIOR LABELED 'DANGEROUS.' STUDIES INDICATE THAT EFFORTS AT PREDICTING DANGEROUSNESS HAVE LED TO OVERPREDICTION. ALTHOUGH THE THERAPEUTIC MODEL FOR DEALING WITH PERSONS TENDS TO EMPHASIZE PREDICTION AND PREVENTION, INTERVENTION IN A CITIZEN'S PRIVACY TO RESTRICT HIS FREEDOM ON THE BASIS OF SUBJECTIVE PREDICTIONS, ALBEIT BY EXPERTS, RAISES SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS. IN CONFORMING TO ITS PREDICTION-PREVENTION MODEL, THE MEDICAL PROFESSION TENDS TO OPERATE FROM A PRINCIPLE OF 'WHEN IN DOUBT, TREAT.' PARTICULARLY IN TREATING DEVIANT BEHAVIOR, MENTAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES ARE UNDER PRESSURE TO OVERPREDICT, BECAUSE IF AN ERROR IS MADE SUCH THAT A PERSON EXHIBITS DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR, THE MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ARE BLAMED FOR AND POSSIBLY SUED FOR MALPRACTICE. ALSO, IN MANY CASES, THE VERY JUDGMENT THAT A PERSON SUFFERS FROM MENTAL ILLNESS BECOMES SYNONYMOUS WITH AN ASSUMPTION OR PREDICTION OF DANGEROUSNESS. IT IS ADVISED THAT THE ISSUE OF MENTAL ILLNESS SHOULD BE TREATED AS IRRELEVANT IN PREDICTING DANGEROUSNESS, WHERE SUCH PREDICTION IS REQUIRED. ALTHOUGH PREDICTION IS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID, SHOULD DECISIONS CONTINUE TO BE MADE REGARDING PREVENTIVE SOCIAL INTERVENTION. ALL SUCH DECISIONS SHOULD BE MADE BY JUDGES AND JURIES. SINCE PREDICTION OF DANGEROUSNESS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE, THE ILLUSION THAT IT IS SCIENTIFIC SHOULD BE REMOVED BY GIVING NONSCIENTISTS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING SUCH DECISIONS. (RCB)