Universal Violence Predictive Method
A decision path which may be used to to post-hoc determine if you have covered all your bases in predicting violence is now presented. The decision path below is fully explained in:
Violence Prediction: Guidelines for the Forensic Practitioner Second Edition
Harold V. Hall & Ronald S. Ebert (2002)
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Ltd.
The identical decision path has been utilized by the director for the last 25 years as a basis for pre-report investigation of violent crimes, a template of a violence risk report, the sequencing of actual courtroom testimony, and to gather hypotheses in investigating unsolved crimes such as serial-rape murder. The decision path orders the thinking and points to key factors to consider in solving crime and predicting violence. Its application represents a powerful force multiplier judging by the favorable outcomes in civil and criminal matters, work with police and other agencies involved in investigation of violent events, and the overall accuracy of the predictions (98% for True Negatives, or correctly predicting someone will not be violent, 80+% for True Positives, or correctly predicting someone will be violent, the True Positives rising to 85+% when a prepotent history of violence is required). Each step in the decision tree contains both inclusionary and exclusionary criteria which, when satisfied, allow the evaluator to proffer a sound conclusion.
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST AND SCORE SHEET INSTRUCTIONS.
Using the above violence prediction process, the risk of a worker acting out violently at a job site can be evaluated.
The following may be helpful in this regard, which the evaluator can utilize with permission of The Pacific Institute.
CLICK EACH PAGE TO OPEN .PDF
First, looking back over your evaluation determine if you have gathered a diversified and sufficient database. Information should be collected relevant to the possible perpetrator, possible victim and likely context in which the violence will occur. The best indicators of future aggression are those empirically-determined characteristics or events which load significantly on violent recidivism.
Second, make sure that unintentional distortion and/or deliberate deception have been taken into account;
Third, the history of the likely perpetrator, victim, and context needs to be gathered, especially where they intersect in time and space.
Fourth, you should be aware of opportunity variables which make violence possible, such as availability of weapons, the victim(s) themselves, and transportation.
Fifth, there should be knowledge of triggering stimuli, short term in temporality and intense in impact, the three most common for individual violence being substance abuse/intoxication, breakup or anticipated breakup of the central love relationship, and work conflict. Be aware, however, that triggers to violence are not needed when the predictee is a psychopath or when the organization’s mission is to harm opposing forces, as in combat operations.
Next, operationalized predictions (i.e., conclusions) need to be clearly stated terms of the direction of violence, likely severity and type, the factors which formed your conclusions, and the means to re-evaluate your conclusions (i.e., a feedback mechanism). Except when operating in organizations whose mission is to inflict casualties on others, the best prediction is that no violence will be shown by individuals who have no history of threatened, attempted or consummated violence.
CHECKLIST PG 4
CHECKLIST PG2
CHECKLIST PG 3
CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS PG1