Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-mdtzd Total loading time: 0.269 Render date: 2021-10-21T14:24:51.656Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Minority report on violence risk assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Matthew Large
Affiliation:
The Prince of Wales Hospital, and Conjoint Senior Lecturer, School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, email: mmbl@bigpond.com
Christopher Ryan
Affiliation:
Westmead Hospital, and Clinical Senior Lecturer, Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Australia
Olav Nielssen
Affiliation:
St Vincent's Hospital, and Conjoint Senior Lecturer, Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety and Depression, School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2012

The cover of the July 2011 issue of The Psychiatrist featured the unshaven face of a young man staring impassively back at the reader, with the caption ‘Psychiatric Report’, in what was an unmistakable parody of the publicity posters for Steven Spielberg's science-fiction neo-noir classic, Minority Report. The cover referred to two articles within about psychiatric report writing. We see similarities between the central idea of the film and those psychiatric reports that claim to estimate the risk of future violence.

Based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, Minority Report took us to Washington DC in 2054, a world where homicides can be prevented. A special police department, the Pre-Crime Unit, apprehends people before they commit a murder, based on the reports of three psychic ‘pre-cogs’. Once identified by the pre-cogs, criminals-to-be are apprehended and permanently placed into a state of suspended animation. The story follows the plight of John Anderton, played by Tom Cruise, who discovers that he is about to be arrested for a murder he is sure he will never commit. The movie works because we empathise with Anderton as he realises the injustice of convicting people who have yet to commit a crime and struggles against both the particular error in prediction and sinister political opportunism based on fear of crime.

The Mental Health Act demands the detention of a person with a mental disorder if ‘he ought to be so detained in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons [emphasis mine]’ (Part II, Section 2 (2b)). Unfortunately, current psychiatric risk assessment, on which decisions to protect the public might be made, compare very poorly with the powers of the fictional pre-cogs.

In the most optimal circumstances, using the best instruments, a sensitivity and specificity of 80% might just be achieved. Reference Large, Ryan, Paton, Nielssen and Singh1 If Pre-Crime had used risk assessment with this predictive power in the years before 2054, about 200 murders would still have occurred, 800 would have been prevented and 20 000 citizens of Washington DC (2% of the population) would have been needlessly frozen. In the film, Pre-Crime is eventually shut down, because even a single false positive is unacceptable to the Washingtonians of the future. Back in the real world, the Mental Health Act continues to demand that doctors make judgements about detention for the protection of others.

The false positive rate is a major problem with violence risk assessment in psychiatry and for mental health legislation that requires judgements about future harm. False positives waste resources, and lead to needless and unfair detention and excessive treatment. Reference Nielssen, Ryan and Large2 True negatives can also be a problem if mental health law does not allow the treatment of those who cannot consent to it by virtue of incapacity, but who are not judged a threat to themselves or others. Reference Large, Ryan, Nielssen and Hayes3

Moreover, there is no evidence that the application of risk assessment can offer adequate protection to the public. Reference Mossman4 Risk assessment, as it is currently practised in psychiatry, is so flawed that it should not be used as the basis for clinical decision-making or coercive treatment. Instead, treatment decisions should be made as they are in the rest of medicine, after discussing the risks and benefits of treatment with the patient or, in the case of those who lack capacity, be made in the patient's best interests, after discussion with a proxy decision maker.

References

1 Large, MM, Ryan, CJ, Paton, M, Nielssen, O, Singh, S. The predictive value of risk categorization in schizophrenia. Harv Rev Psychiatry 2011; 19: 2533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Nielssen, O, Ryan, C, Large, M. Risk assessment and resource allocation. Australas Psychiatry 2011; 19: 270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Large, MM, Ryan, CJ, Nielssen, OB, Hayes, RA. The danger of dangerousness: why we must remove the dangerousness criterion from our mental health acts. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 877–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Mossman, D. The imperfection of protection through detection and intervention. Lessons from three decades of research on the psychiatric assessment of violence risk. J Leg Med 2009; 30: 109–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 Ryan, CJ, Nielssen, O, Paton, MB, Large, M. Clinical decisions in psychiatry should not be based on risk-assessment. Australas Psychiatry 2010; 18: 398403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.
You have Access
Open access
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Minority report on violence risk assessment
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Minority report on violence risk assessment
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Minority report on violence risk assessment
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *