Public Mass Murderers and Federal Mental Health Background Checks

The litany of public mass murders, from Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, Las Vegas, and Parkland to less well‐known incidents that occur yearly, has focused national attention on federally mandated mental health background checks of prospective gun purchasers. The call has been to put more gun‐disqualifying mental health records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database to prevent “deranged” murderers from buying guns and running amok. Our study examines whether increasing the robustness of the mental health background database will likely prevent potential public mass murderers from buying guns. Building on research that shows that serious mental illness contributes little to the risk of interpersonal violence and, further, that few persons with serious mental illness acquire gun‐disqualifying mental health records, we examine whether public mass murderers are among the small percentage of those with serious mental illness who do have gun‐disqualifying mental health records. Using a large sample of 106 US offenders who used a firearm to commit a public mass murder from 1990 to 2014, we find that half of the offenders had a history of mental illness or mental health treatment but that less than 5 percent had gun‐disqualifying mental health records. Implications of these findings and recommendations for further research are discussed.     

Gender, Threat/Control-Override Delusions and Violence

This study brings together the threat/control-override perspective and the literature on gender and stress coping to argue that gender moderates the association between threat delusions and violence. We suggest that men are more likely than women to respond to stressors such as threat delusions with violence. We test these ideas using data from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study, a multi-wave study of post-discharge psychiatric patients. Within-person results from two-level hierarchical models support the idea that men and women cope with threat delusions differently. Specifically, we find that men are significantly more likely to engage in violence during periods when they experience threat delusions, compared with periods when they do not experience threat delusions. In contrast, women are significantly less likely to engage in violence during times when they experience threat delusions, compared with periods when they do not. We discuss these findings in light of the literature on gender and stress coping.     

Dissection of the prongs of ALI. A retrospective assessment of criminal responsibility by the psychiatric staff of the Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center

The staff of the Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center has systematically reassessed the impact of the proposed modification of the ALI test removing the second prong. Findings of this retrospective survey reveal few changes in the composite staff opinions reported by the hospital but many variations in the opinions of individual psychiatrists when rating the prongs independently. The effect of these changes in Maryland (while difficult to anticipate) might be an increase in litigation. The resulting fiscal impact, therefore, not only could affect the Division of Corrections but also could increase court costs. The data suggest that rather than limiting psychiatric testimony and ensuring that only the sickest patients are exculpated, the proposed truncation of ALI may have paradoxical consequences. There may be more frequent battles of the experts based on less rigorous science and potential exclusion of affective psychosis from appropriate access to the defense of insanity. While the study methods and sample size prohibit reliable conclusions concerning the likelihood of these consequences in vivo, the issues raised strongly support a need for further investigation before a relatively well-functioning legal framework is changed in favor of the untested rubric of the proposed modifications of ALI.     

Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America

In the tradition of research on political tolerance and democratic rights in context, this study uses a national survey of Americans conducted shortly after the September 11, 2001 attack on America to investigate people's willingness to trade off civil liberties for greater personal safety and security. We find that the greater people's sense of threat, the lower their support for civil liberties. This effect interacts, however, with trust in government. The lower people's trust in government, the less willing they are to trade off civil liberties for security, regardless of their level of threat. African Americans are much less willing to trade civil liberties for security than whites or Latinos, even with other factors taken into account. This may reflect their long-standing commitment to the struggle for rights. Liberals are less willing to trade off civil liberties than moderates or conservatives, but liberals converge toward the position taken by conservatives when their sense of the threat of terrorism is high. While not a forecast of the future, the results indicate that Americans' commitment to democratic values is highly contingent on other concerns and that the context of a large-scale threat to national or personal security can induce a substantial willingness to give up rights.