UNDERSTANDING GAPS IN PREDICTION OF

DANGEROUSNESSEVIDENCE FROM NEURO-CRIMINOLOGY AND A THEORETICAL

SPECULATION

DANGEROUSNESS: WHAT IT MEANS?

• THE TENDENCY OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO INFLICT SERIOUS BODILY HARM ON OTHERS IS TERMED AS “DANGEROUSNESS” (SCOTT, P.D., 1977)

• THE THREE MAIN ELEMENTS OF DANGEROUSNESS ARE: 1. DESTRUCTIVENESS2. PREDICTION3. FEAR

• THE FOCUS OF THIS STUDY IS “PREDICTION OF DANGEROUSNESS”

PREDICTION OF DANGEROUSNESS

A BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW

WHAT DID WE KNOW 50 YEARS BACK?

• PREDICTION WAS PRIMARILY DEPENDENT ON THE SKILLS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, PSYCHIATRISTS AND SOCIAL WORKERS

• THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS FIELD OF STUDY WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY EMPHASIZED AND THERE WAS HARDLY ANY RESEARCH

• PREDICTION BACK THEN WAS LARGELY A MATTER OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT

• SUCH JUDGMENTS WERE PRONE TO ERROR AND BIAS

WHAT DO WE KNOW NOW?

• CRIME IS NOW CONSIDERED A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM, LIKE CANCER• SEVERAL STATISTICAL TOOLS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AND THEY HAVE

BEEN TESTED UNDER DIFFERENT SETTINGS• SOME OF THE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF CURRENT METHODS OF

PREDICTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:1. THE PROCESS OF RISK MANAGEMENT2. SELECTION OF INTERVENTION MODES AND TARGETS FOR TREATMENT3. THE ASSESSMENT OF REHABILITATION PROGRESS

CAMBRIDGE STUDY IN DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR (FARRINGTON, 2003)•THIS STUDY TRACKED 411 SOUTH LONDON BOYS BORN IN LATE 1950S OVER A PERIOD OF 40 YEARS•3% OF THE SAMPLE WERE CONVICTED OF VIOLENT CRIMES WITHOUT BEING EXPOSED TO RISK FACTORS•THE FACTOR INCREASED TO 31% WITH FOUR RISK FACTORS•THESE RISK FACTORS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. LOW INCOME AND POOR HOUSING2. LIVING IN DETERIORATE INNER CITY AREAS3. HIGH DEGREE OF IMPULSIVITY AND HYPERACTIVITY4. LOW INTELLIGENCE AND LOW SCHOOL ATTAINMENT5. POOR PARENTAL SUPERVISION AND HARSH AND ERRATIC DISCIPLINE6. PARENTAL CONFLICT AND BROKEN FAMILIES

TOOLS AT OUR DISPOSAL: ACTUARIAL METHODS

1. DBRS: DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE, 19852. VRAG: VIOLENCE RISK APPRAISAL GUIDE, 19933. SORAG: SEX OFFENDER RISK APPRAISAL GUIDE,

19984. PCL-R: PSYCHOPATHY CHECKLIST REVISED, 20025. PCL-SV: PSYCHOPATHY CHECKLIST SCREENING

VERSION, 19956. LSI-R: LEVEL OF SERVICE INVENTORY REVISED, 19957. RRASOR: RAPID RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SEX

OFFENCE RECIDIVISM, 20028. STATIC-99/20029. SONAR: SEX OFFENDER NEEDS ASSESSMENT

RATING, 200010. MNSOST-R: MINNESOTA SEX OFFENDER SCREENING

TOOL REVISED, 199811. VRS: VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT SCALE, 199612. RISK MATRIX 2000, 2003

•RISK VARIABLES ARE STATISTICALLY CALCULATED•DATA IS OBTAINED THROUGH YEARS OF FOLLOW-UP RESEARCH ON A SPECIFIC SAMPLE•RESULTS ARE MATCHED TO ARRIVE AT A CONSENSUS•LATER INDIVIDUALS ARE COMPARED TO THIS MASSIVE DATA

STRUCTURAL CLINICAL GUIDES

1. HCR-20 VERSION 2: HISTORICAL, CLINICAL, RISK MANAGEMENT ITEMS – 20, 1997

2. SVR-20: SEXUAL VIOLENCE RISK – 20, 1997

3. SACJ: STRUCTURED ANCHORED CLINICAL JUDGMENT SCALE, 2000

THERE ARE MANY MORE TOOLS AVAILABLE FOR VIOLENCE RISK

ASSESSMENT DEPENDING ON THE CATEGORY OF VIOLENCE,

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND JUDICIAL REQUIREMENTS

•CERTAIN SET OF RISK FACTORS OR VARIABLES ARE CONSIDERED WITH REGARDS TO THE CONCERNED INDIVIDUAL•THE PAST EXPERIENCES OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARE ANALYSED•BASED ON THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF RISK FACTORS THE DANGEROUSNESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS PREDICTED

COMPARING THE TOOLS

CLINICAL JUDGEMENT• CLINICAL BIAS IS PROMINENT• ACCURACY MIGHT BE INFLUENCED BY

CLINICIAN’S SUBJECTIVITY• IT IS LESS RELIABLE SCIENTIFICALLY• IT VARIES FROM ONE CASE TO

ANOTHER• IT CANNOT BE REPLICATED

EFFICIENTLY

PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS• CLINICAL BIAS IS ABSENT• ACCURACY IS OBJECTIVELY

DETERMINED• MORE RELIABLE SCIENTIFICALLY• DOES NOT VARY, IF THE FACTORS

BEING CONSIDERED ARE SIMILAR BETWEEN CASES

• CAN BE EFFECTIVELY REPLICATED

PREDICTION ACCURACYTO WHAT EXTENT IS PREDICTION POSSIBLE?

META ANALYSISBASED ON A META-ANALYSIS CONDUCTED ON 30 SELECTED STUDIES•THE STUDY WAS BASED ON PRISMA GUIDELINES•FROM THE INITIAL 200 STUDIES THE NUMBER WAS SHORTLISTED TO A FINAL 30 UNIFORM STUDIES•CONTINUOUS RANDOM EFFECTS MODEL WAS CHOSEN AND THE METRIC WAS STANDARDIZED MEAN DIFFERENCE

META-REGRESSION PLOTTHE ABOVE DATA INDICATES THAT MOST STUDIES SHOW AN ACCURACY IN THE RANGE OF 60-80%

Prediction of dangerousness has an

accuracy of 75%

NEURO-CRIMINOLOGYWHAT ARE THE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS?

WORK OF DR. ADRIAN RAINE

• DR. RAINE HAS EMPHASIZED IN HIS 2013 STUDY THE IMPORTANCE OF A BIOLOGICAL STUDY OF CRIME

• “CRIMINALS DO HAVE BROKEN BRAINS”, HE WRITES, “THE EVIDENCE CAN NO LONGER BE IGNORED”

• HIS HYPOTHESIS IS SOLELY FOCUSED ON VIOLENT CRIMES• HE BELIEVES THAT BOTH GENES AND ENVIRONMENT PLAY AN IMPORTANT

ROLE IN THE MAKING OF A CRIMINAL• HE SUGGESTS THAT TWO INDIVIDUALS GROWING UP IN THE SAME

ENVIRONMENT DO NOT END-UP SIMILAR WHEN THEY GROW UP

BRAIN SCANSTHE BRAIN SCANS OF VIOLENT CRIMINALS REVEAL IMPORTANT SYMPTOMS OF MALFUNCTION IN IMPORTANT BRAIN REGIONS

NEUROCRIMINOLOGY AS A TOOL FOR PREDICTION?

• NEUROCRIMINOLOGY HAS COME UP AS A NEW-AGE TOOL FOR PREDICTING FUTURE VIOLENCE

• COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE STARTED USING BRAIN SCANS OF CRIMINALS AND ITS FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION AS DEPENDABLE EVIDENCE IN COMPLICATED CASES

• HOWEVER, THERE IS A BLIND SPOT IN THIS• DR. RAINE IN AN IMPORTANT TALK ON NEUROETHICS IN 2014, ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF

PRACTICAL RELIABILITY OF THIS METHOD• HE GOT HIS OWN BRAIN SCANNED AND WAS ASTONISHED TO SEE THAT HIS SCAN

RESEMBLED THAT OF A VIOLENT CRIMINAL• HE WAS SKEPTICAL TO USE THIS METHOD ON A LARGE SCALE AND SPECIFIED THAT BRAIN

SCANS BY THEMSELVES CANNOT BE INDICATORS OF FUTURE VIOLENCE• IT ALSO QUESTIONS THE ETHICS OF BRANDING SOMEONE ON THE BASIS OF THEIR

BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS, WHICH CANNOT BE MODIFIED BY THE PERSON HIMSELF

HAS PREDICTION IMPROVED?NEW LEVEL OF ACCURACY AS A RESULT OF THE LATEST TOOL

NEWER ACCURACY LEADING TO A NEWER "GAP"

• PREVIOUSLY THE ACCURACY OF VIOLENCE PREDICTION WAS 75%, AS OBSERVED IN A META-ANALYSIS OF LEADING STUDIES IN THE FIELD OF VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH

• AFTER DR. RAINE’S RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF NEUROCRIMINOLOGY THE ACCURACY OF VIOLENCE PREDICTION HAS GONE UP TO 81 - 85%

• ALTHOUGH THE PREVIOUS GAP IN PREDICTION WHICH WAS 25% HAS GONE DOWN TO 15-19%, THE GAP PERSISTS NONETHELESS

• CURRENT RESEARCH HAS HIT A WALL, AS FAR AS REACHING HIGHER ACCURACY IN PREDICTION IS CONCERNED

WHY IS THERE A PERSISTENT GAP?

A THEORETICAL SPECULATION

THE "FREE WILL" BLACK BOX

• PREDICTION OF VIOLENCE IS NOT AN ABSTRACT TOOL THAT CAN BE APPLIED WITH SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY UPON EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHILE EXPECTING THE SAME RESULTS

• THE IMPORTANT ELEMENT MISSING IN PREDICTION SCIENCE TODAY MIGHT BE “SUBJECTIVE STATE” OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHOSE BEHAVIOR IS BEING PREDICTED

• WE CAN CALL THIS “FREE WILL”• FREE WILL OF AN INDIVIDUAL IS AN IMPENETRABLE BLACK BOX SOCIAL

SCIENCE FACES IN THIS DAY AND AGE

CAN WE OPEN THE BLACK BOX?• FREE WILL, BEING A SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT, IS AN ALIEN CONCEPT TO

SCIENCE• THE MOMENT WE TRY TO MEASURE IT, IT BECOMES IMMEASURABLE• THE MOMENT WE TRY TO DEFINE IT, IT BECOMES INDEFINITE• ONE METHOD OF ANALYZING FREE WILL IS TO TURN TO THE GOLDEN

SAGE – PHILOSOPHY• WE CAN THEORIZE FREE WILL AND UNDERSTAND IT ONLY AS LONG AS

WE DO NOT MEASURE IT• HOWEVER, AS CAN BE UNDERSTOOD WE CANNOT BE SCIENTISTS

WITHOUT SCIENCE• HENCE, THE EXISTING PROBLEM STANDS TALL ON OUR FACES, WITHOUT

A SOLUTION

SOME OF THE POSSIBLE ANSWERS

• BY CONSIDERING FREE WILL AS AN ALPHA CONCEPT• LET US SAY THAT IT IS A VARIABLE WE CANNOT MEASURE, WE CAN STILL

STATISTICALLY MEASURE PREDICTION AS 100-ALPHA• THUS, BY MEANS OF TRIAL AND ERROR, WE WILL NEED TO FIND NEW WAYS TO

DISSOLVE THE BOX FROM THE OUTSIDE• BECAUSE, APART FROM SCIENCE WE HAVE THE TOOL OF OBSERVATION AND LOGIC• ANOTHER METHOD IS TO STUDY A HUGE SAMPLE SIZE OF CRIMINALS OVER A

LARGE SPAN OF TIME AND TO INTRICATELY STUDY THE PATTERN OF INTERPLAY BETWEEN MICRO AND MACRO FACTORS OF THE ACT OF CRIME

THE FUTURE

• NEUROCRIMINOLOGY IS BUT THE BEGINNING OF THE SOLUTION• WE NEED MORE RESEARCH TO UNDERSTAND THE VERY CHARACTER OF CRIME AND THE

CRIMINAL AND THE PROCESS THAT CONNECTS ONE TO THE OTHER• CRIME CAN BE INVESTIGATED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM BY

QUESTIONING THE VERY ACT OF QUESTIONING• WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE, THUS, IS THE VERY METHOD SCIENCE FOLLOWS TO PREDICT

HUMAN BEHAVIOR• IN CASE WE DISCOVER A NEW METHOD, IT WILL CHANGE SOCIAL SCIENCE FOREVER• IS IT POSSIBLE? • ONLY FUTURE CAN TELL…

THANK YOU!

AARTHI RAGHAVAN