John Monahan – författare

Rethinking Risk Assessment tells the story of a pioneering investigation that challenges preconceptions about the frequency and nature of violence among persons with mental disorders, and suggests an innovative approach to predicting its occurrence.

In courts across the country, judges depend on mental health experts to determine whether mentally disordered people are dangerous. But experts' ability to predict violence is severely limited, and they are wrong as often as they are right. This study reviews two decades of research on mental disorder and offers new empirical and theoretical work that will pave the way for more accurate predictions of violent behavior."Essential for all those who are interested in the study of risk assessment of violence. It is particularly important for the researcher in this area. . . . For the clinician who must make violence assessments it is important reading as well."—Stewart Levine, Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

In its narrowest sense, "mentally disordered offender" refers to the approximately twenty thousand persons per year in the United States who are institutionalized as not guilty by reason of insanity, incompetent to stand trial, and mentally disordered sex offenders, as well as those prisoners transferred to mental hospitals. The real importance of mentally disordered offenders, however, may not lie in this figure. Rather, it may reside in the symbolic role that mentally disordered offenders play for the rest of the legal system. The 3,140 persons residing in state institutions on an average day in 1978 as not guilty by reason of insanity (see Chapter 4), for example, are surely worthy of concern in their own right. But they represent only 1% of the 307,276 persons residing in state and federal prisons in the same period (U. S. Dept. of Justice, 1981). From a purely numeric point of view, the insanity defense truly is "much ado about little" (Pasewark & Pasewark, 1982). The central importance of understanding these persons, however, is that they serve a symbolic function in justifying the imprisonment of the other 99%. The insanity defense, as Stone (1975) has noted, is "the exception that proves the rule. " By exculpating a relatively few people from being criminally responsible for their behavior, the law inculpates all other law violators as liable for social sanction.

Forced hospitalization of people with mental disorders has long been a critical issue in the mental health services. Coercion and Aggressive Community Treatment is the first sustained description and analysis of what happens when `aggressive' treatment becomes `coerced' treatment. Mental health professionals poignantly discuss the tension they feel between wanting to do everything to treat desperately ill people and the need to respect the rights of these same people who want to make their own decisions, even if this means forgoing treatment.

Adjudicative competence remains an important topic of research and practice in psychology and law. In the five sections of this volume the authors present, not only a summary of the research of the MacArthur studies on competence, but also an examination of the underlying theoretical work of Professor Richard Bonnie.

Discover the true genius behind history's greatest "madmen". From Dr. Frankenstein to Dr. Jekyll, the image of the mad scientist surrounded by glass vials, copper coils, and electrical apparatus remains a popular fixture. In films and fiction, he's comically misguided, tragically misunderstood, or pathologically evil. But the origins of this stereotype can be found in the sometimes-eccentric real life men and women who challenged our view of the world and broke new scientific frontiers. They Called Me Mad recounts the amazing true stories of such historical luminaries as Archimedes, the calculator of pi and creator of the world's first death ray; Isaac Newton, the world's first great scientist and the last great alchemist; Nikola Tesla, who built the precursors of robots, fluorescent lighting, and particle beam weapons before the turn of the twentieth century-and more.

This is the tenth volume in a series on research in community and mental health.

Adjudicative competence remains an important topic of research and practice in psychology and law. In the five sections of Adjudicative Competence: The MacArthur Studies, the authors present not only a summary of the research of the MacArthur studies on competence but also an examination of the underlying theoretical work of Professor Richard Bonnie. It is the first publication to encapsulate the scope and significance of both the studies themselves and Bonnie's contributions. There is no other source available that addresses this range of topics.Given its breadth and scope, this book will be a "must have" for forensic mental health professionals, an important volume for lawyers, and a vital academic reference work.

Mental health professionals poignantly discuss the tension they feel between wanting to do everything to treat desperately ill people and the need to respect the rights of these same people who want to make their own decisions, even if this means forgoing treatment.

In its narrowest sense, "mentally disordered offender" refers to the approximately twenty thousand persons per year in the United States who are institutionalized as not guilty by reason of insanity, incompetent to stand trial, and mentally disordered sex offenders, as well as those prisoners transferred to mental hospitals. The real importance of mentally disordered offenders, however, may not lie in this figure. Rather, it may reside in the symbolic role that mentally disordered offenders play for the rest of the legal system. The 3,140 persons residing in state institutions on an average day in 1978 as not guilty by reason of insanity (see Chapter 4), for example, are surely worthy of concern in their own right. But they represent only 1% of the 307,276 persons residing in state and federal prisons in the same period (U. S. Dept. of Justice, 1981). From a purely numeric point of view, the insanity defense truly is "much ado about little" (Pasewark & Pasewark, 1982). The central importance of understanding these persons, however, is that they serve a symbolic function in justifying the imprisonment of the other 99%. The insanity defense, as Stone (1975) has noted, is "the exception that proves the rule. " By exculpating a relatively few people from being criminally responsible for their behavior, the law inculpates all other law violators as liable for social sanction.