scholarly journals Confronting the Demons of Future Dangerousness

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael R. Cavanaugh ◽  
Marilyn McShane ◽  
Frank P. Williams
Keyword(s):  
2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt DeLisi ◽  
Ed A. Munoz
Keyword(s):  

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 99-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Sugarman ◽  
Geoff Dickens

Aims and MethodThe assessment of the future dangerousness of firesetters is problematical but psychiatrists may be requested to perform assessment of arsonists for the courts. We surveyed the views of psychiatrists and others (n=54) on how 11 candidate historical variables might contribute to future dangerousness.ResultsHierarchical cluster analysis indicated that variables fell into three groups related to level of perceived dangerousness. Apparent intention to endanger life and setting fire to an occupied building were the items thought by psychiatrists to most indicate highest future dangerousness. Having previously set fires that caused extensive damage, failure to extinguish previous fires or alert the authorities were perceived as indicating moderate future dangerousness.Clinical ImplicationsThe study adds to what is known about how psychiatrists formulate assessments of future dangerousness.


2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark D. Cunningham ◽  
Jon R. Sorensen ◽  
Thomas J. Reidy
Keyword(s):  

2005 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Edens ◽  
Jacqueline K. Buffington-Vollum ◽  
Andrea Keilen ◽  
Phillip Roskamp ◽  
Christine Anthony

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document