The Washington Post has an interesting article on mass murderers at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/predicting-violence-is-a-work-in-progress/2013/01/03/2e8955b8-5371-11e2-a613-ec8d394535c6_story.html
But, trust the math- and science-challenged Post. On page 2, it lists success rates of 1/3 (Monahan) and/or 41% (http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4692?view=long&pmid=22833604) in predicting violence as "slightly better than chance". That would be a success rate of better than 50%. They fail to mention that the figure of 41% was the median of a interquartile range of (27%-60%). Median is not the same as average, which is the generally accepted way to express statistical expectation. You might want to check the math and statistics.
The abstract of the British Medical Journal articles says: Conclusions Although risk assessment tools are widely used in clinical and criminal justice settings, their predictive accuracy varies depending on how they are used. They seem to identify low risk individuals with high levels of accuracy, but their use as sole determinants of detention, sentencing, and release is not supported by the current evidence. Further research is needed to examine their contribution to treatment and management.
Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing. No refunds are issued. Back issues are available for $10/copy.
We accept Visa, M/C, checks and money orders. Call to charge by phone 918-592-5550. Enter your contact information in the form below and we will contact you.
If ordering by mail, make checks and money orders payable to Urban Tulsa Weekly. Send your payment along with your complete postal delivery address to Urban Tulsa Weekly, Attn: Samantha, PO Box 50499, Tulsa, OK 74150
Address:
Address2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email:
Phone:
Comments:
Urban Tulsa Weekly
1924 E. 6th St.
Tulsa OK 74104
Phone: (918) 592-5550
Fax: (918) 592-5970
e-mail: Subscriptions
COMMENTS
Re: Love Letters, hate mail
1 comments total
Sort Comments: Most Recent | Oldest First
Re: Love Letters, hate mail
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/predicting-violence-is-a-work-in-progress/2013/01/03/2e8955b8-5371-11e2-a613-ec8d394535c6_story.html
But, trust the math- and science-challenged Post. On page 2, it lists success rates of 1/3 (Monahan) and/or 41% (http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4692?view=long&pmid=22833604) in predicting violence as "slightly better than chance". That would be a success rate of better than 50%. They fail to mention that the figure of 41% was the median of a interquartile range of (27%-60%). Median is not the same as average, which is the generally accepted way to express statistical expectation. You might want to check the math and statistics.
The abstract of the British Medical Journal articles says:
Conclusions Although risk assessment tools are widely used in clinical and criminal justice settings, their predictive accuracy varies depending on how they are used. They seem to identify low risk individuals with high levels of accuracy, but their use as sole determinants of detention, sentencing, and release is not supported by the current evidence. Further research is needed to examine their contribution to treatment and management.