Robert C. Reinehr

Predicting Dangerousness of Maximum Security Forensic Mental Patients

Demographic and psychological test data were collected for 269 adult male forensic patients upon admission to the forensic unit of a state psychiatric hospital. Each individual was judged to be dangerous or not dangerous by a panel of three judges. A separate sample of 135 patients was then collected and an attempt made to predict clinical judgment of dangerousness by use of a weighted formula previously derived. Predictions obtained did not attain statistical significance. A subsample of 165 patients was followed up after discharge. There were 15 arrests for violent crime recorded for these individuals subsequent to discharge. Implications of these findings are discussed.

PERFORMANCE OF FORENSIC PATIENTS ON THE HOLTZMAN INKBLOT TECHNIQUE: A NORMATIVE STUDY

The Holtzman Inkblot Technique was administered to all 269 adult males admitted as forensic patients in the state of Texas during a 12-mo. period. Normative data presented suggest that these forensic patients differ from other criterion groups in their responses to this psychometrically rigorous projective technique. Factor analysis of the scores indicated a factorial structure similar to that reported for several of the Holtzman standardization samples but with at least one factor which seems to be unique to these forensic patients.

A QUICK VERSION OF ADMINISTRATION FOR THE GROUP HOLTZMAN INKBLOT TECHNIQUE

A quick version of the standard Group Holtzman Inkblot Technique was administered to 48 college students in introductory psychology classes during regular 50-min. class periods. Results indicated that most of the scores obtained by this quick version are comparable to those obtained by the more time-consuming standard group version.

Dangerousness Review Boards in Texas

In Texas, the responsibility for the determination of dangerousness has, since 1975, been vested in a board appointed by the commissioner of the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. The composition of this board has twice been changed by the legislature as a result of public concern that review boards may have been too lenient in releasing potentially dangerous individuals from custody. The performance of the two most recent of these boards is compared and decision patterns are found to be complex and not directly related to the professional affiliations of board members.

The Mentally Ill Offender: A Comparison of Prison Inmates, Forensic Psychiatric Patients, and General Psychiatric Patients

The study examines the question of appropriate placement of forensic psychiatric patients, by comparing population characteristics of a penal institution, a general psychiatric hospital, and a maximum security forensic psychiatric facility. Results suggest that forensic patients resemble general psychiatric patients more closely than they resemble prisoners. In demographic areas the patient groups are quite similar and quite different from the prisoner group. The results of psychological testing are equivocal, but support the impression patient groups differ from prisoners. The study suggests courts are reasonably successful in identifying those offenders placed in mental health institutions rather than in a criminal justice setting.