Cross-Validation and Extension of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide for Child Molesters and Rapists

A cross-validation of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide was performed on a sample of 159 child molesters and rapists followed for an average of 10 years at risk The performance of the instrument was also examined on a 10-yr followup of 288 sex offenders that included both those in the original construction sample for the VRAG and the validation sample. The instrument performed as well as it had in construction for predicting violent recidivism in both the cross-validation and extended followup samples, and moderately well in the prediction of sexual recidivism. Survival analyses showed that child molesters exhibited higher risk of sexual recidivism than rapists or offenders against both children and adults, whereas the opposite was true for violent recidivism. As predicted, psychopathy and phallometrically determined sexual deviance exhibited a multiplicative interaction effect on sexual recidivism. Proportional hazards event history analyses supported the use of the VRAG for the prediction of violent recidivism among sex offenders.     

Tooth mineralization standards for blacks and whites from the middle southern United States

Normative standards are provided for permanent tooth mineralization stages for blacks and whites of the middle southern United States. The data cover tooth development from 3.5 to 13 years of age. Females develop more rapidly than males, and blacks are nearly twice as sexually dimorphic (7.2%) as whites (3.7%). Within each sex, blacks achieve mineralization stages significantly earlier, by about 5%, than whites. This complements earlier findings that teeth erupt at appreciably earlier mean ages in blacks.     

PLEA BARGAINING AS A GAME: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF NEGOTIATED SENTENCING DECISIONS

Current studies of courtroom decisionmaking emphasize contextual variation and the interaction of large numbers of variables In explaining decision outcomes. However, theory suggests that courtroom decisions may be dominated by simple "rules of thumb" that allow decisionmakers to cope with scarcity of time and resources. Following this approach, a parslmonious model of plea bargaining as a two-person game is developed and hypotheses are derived. Data on negotiated sentences for burglary and robbery in three California counties serve to test the hypotheses. The findings confirm that prior criminal history is the dominant factor in determining the severity of negotiated sentences and that defendents with more extensive prior records have less incentive to plea bargalh. Identlfication of this decision rule for negotiated sentences contradlcts arguments for limiting plea bargaining that assume negotiations result in sentencing leniency across the board.