skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 98381 Find in a Library
Title: Predictions of Dangerousness (From Crime and Justice - An Annual Review of Research, Volume 6, P 1-50, 1985, Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, ed. - See NCJ-98380)
Author(s): N Morris; M Miller
Date Published: 1985
Page Count: 50
Sponsoring Agency: University of Chicago Press
Chicago, IL 60637
Sale Source: University of Chicago Press
1427 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This essay considers the definitional, moral, and evidentiary problems in the application of the concept of dangerousness in the criminal justice system.
Abstract: Long-term predictions of dangerousness are used throughout the criminal law in investigation, pretrial detention, bail, sentencing, parole, and early release decisions. Use of such predictions is increasing. Reliance on such predictions raises questions of definition, the ethical limits, and proof of dangerousness. Lawyers have relegated predictions of dangerousness to the psychiatric professions, leaving the moral and evidentiary issues untouched. The appropriate application of these predictions is not a technical question of how well a prediction can be made, nor is it a question of the burden of proof. The use of predictions of dangerousness requires a political judgment balancing the risk and harm to society with the intrusion on the liberty of preventatively detained persons. Not all types of predictions are equally satisfactory. Actuarial predictions are preferable to predictions that rely on intuitive judgments by psychiatric professionals. The use of predictions to alter individual dispositions should be allowed only to the extent that such dispositions would be justified as deserved independent of those predictions. Within the range of punishment or control not undeserved, relative predictions of dangerousness may properly influence dispositional decisions. These principles strike a balance between individual autonomy and State authority. In sentencing, the controlling principle is that base expectancy rate of violence for the criminal predicted as dangerous must be higher than the base expectancy for another criminal with a closely similar record but not predicted to be unusually dangerous, before the greater dangerousness of the former may be relied upon to intensify or extend punishment. Forty-two footnotes and 29 references are provided. (Author abstract modified)
Index Term(s): Criminality prediction; Dangerousness; Discretionary decisions; Dispositions; Judicial decisions; Probation or parole decisionmaking; Psychological evaluation; Sentencing recommendations
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.