Individual Confidence Intervals Do Not Inform Decision-Makers About the Accuracy of Risk Assessment Evaluations

Some recent articles have proposed that the confidence interval for the predicted outcome of a single case can be used to describe the predictive accuracy of risk assessments (Hart et al. Br J Psychiat 190:60–65, 2007b; Cooke and Michie, Law Hum Behav 2009). Given that the confidence intervals for an individual prediction are very large, Cooke and colleagues have questioned the wisdom of applying recidivism rates estimated from group data to single cases. In this article, we argue that the confidence intervals for the recidivism outcome predicted for a single case will range between zero to one (i.e., be uninformative) when the outcome is dichotomous and the predicted probability is between .05 and .95. This is true by definition and limits the utility of using individual confidence intervals to measure predictive accuracy. Consequently, other quality indicators (many of which are non-quantitative) are needed to determine the accuracy and error of risk evaluations.     

Mental disorder as the cause of a crime

An offender's punishment can be reduced when a court decides that his mental disorder reduces his responsibility for what he did. Courts have sought to establish whether a mentally disordered offender's responsibility is reduced by asking whether his disorder caused the crime. Acceptance of this “causation by mental disorder” criterion has fluctuated, however. This may be because causal explanations are not the types of explanations we are accustomed to offering for the kinds of acts that bring defendants, and psychiatric witnesses, to court. More often, we offer what philosophers have called “possibility” explanations for these acts. The application of psychiatry to possibility explanations has not been widely explored. It offers the potential for the improved use of psychiatric evidence in criminal proceedings.     

East German Intelligence and Ireland, 1949–90: Espionage,Terrorism and Diplomacy

This article analyses the writings of a prominent German social and political theorist ‐ Jürgen Habermas ‐ on the process of (reunification in Germany and examines responses to his interventions by right‐wing thinkers opposed to his views. (Re)unification is a setting of rapidly developing and changing events which present a challenge to Habermas’ thinking. Put simply, Habermas is highly critical of the ‘rush towards (re)unification’ and the process which has followed it. In particular, he objects to attempts by right‐wing thinkers, predominantly historians, to rewrite German history and which elude German responsibility in respect of the horrors of the Holocaust. Equally, he has explicitly shown the links between questions of German identity and the rewriting of German history and argues that the only viable identity for Germany post‐(re)Unification is that of ‘constitutional identity’ and not national identity. His writings have, however, been the subject of sometimes vehement and vitriolic critiques and this article seeks not only to engage with these but also to examine the interventions of Habermas in relation to his earlier more theoretical writings.     

International Relations and the Reconstruction of Political Theory

International relations and political theory are generally seen as two distinct disciplines with their different methodologies and clusters of problems. This division of labour has in some respects proved useful but may now be too extreme. Political theory and international relations have a common subject matter in political action and state behaviour. The advantages for political theory and international relations in crossing the dividing lines between the disciplines are explored. A case is made for a political theory which is focussed on international relations and an international relations which exploits the approaches and methods of political theory.     

Gangs and delinquency

This study explores the meaning of police estimates of gang membership, by reviewing the characteristics of youth labeled as gang members in one western state, Hawaii, during 1991. Arrest patterns of these youth do not support the notion that they constitute a seriously violent subset of criminals. Indeed, nearly a third had not been arrested in the previous three years; notable too is the absence of a large number of weapon or drug arrests. These findings are amplified by data from a comparison of youth who were not labeled as gang members; these indicate that youth (in the City and County of Honolulu) who are delinquent differ little from those youth suspected of gang membership in terms of the frequency or severity of their offenses. Finally, the groups most commonly labeled by police as gang members are Filipino and Samoan males, but self-report data on gang membership indicate a somewhat different ethnic composition. The policy implications of these findings are also discussed.A previous version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, November 1992, New Orleans, Louisiana