The Guantánamo Files and Future Violence Assessment
Maria Konnikova is the New York Times bestselling author of The Confidence Game (Viking/Penguin 2016) and Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes (Viking/Penguin, 2013). She is a contributing writer for The New Yorker, where she writes a regular column with a focus on psychology and culture, and her writing has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, California Sunday, Pacific Standard, The New Republic, WIRED, and The Smithsonian, among numerous other publications. Maria is a recipient of the 2015 Harvard Medical School Media Fellowship, and is a Schachter Writing Fellow at Columbia University’s Motivation Science Center. She formerly wrote the “Literally Psyched” column for Scientific American and the popular psychology blog “Artful Choice” for Big Think. She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, where she studied psychology, creative writing, and government, and received her Ph.D. in Psychology from Columbia University.
In Guantánamo Files, the New York Times coverage of Guantánamo from WikiLeaks documents, one piece in particular caught my attention: a discussion of the difficulty of judging detainees’ risk of future violence. Among other facts, the authors bring up two specific cases. Said Mohammed Alam Shah, who was detained in 2001, was deemed to pose no future threat to U.S. interests and sent back to Afghanistan in 2004, where he revealed his real name, Abdullah Mehsud, and went on to plot numerous high-profile attacks before detonating a suicide bomb in 2007. Murat Kurnaz, on the other hand, was judged “high risk.” He was eventually released in 2006, under pressure from Germany (his country of residence) and Turkey (his country of birth) and went on to write numerous critiques against the prison and the system – potentially embarrassing to the U.S., but hardly evidence of “high risk” activity.
So, given both the problematic nature of the evidence in the Guantánamo cases and the high stakes involved, how does one proceed? How do you decide if someone poses a risk or not?
Predicting future criminal violence: past behavior predicts future behavior
A review in the February issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science focuses on just this question: how do we assess the risk of future violence in a criminal population? The news, at least as far as Guantánamo Bay is concerned, is not very happy.
In a review of the various instruments currently used in violence risk assessment, the authors conclude that an unstructured, clinical approach, whereby a clinician selects, measures, and combines risk factors based on his personal experience and judgment, has the least empirical support of any method. Furthermore, there is little evidence that any of the leading validated instruments, that are based on a combination of actuarial, or statistical, patterns and clinical approaches, predicts violence better than any another. Indeed, most seem to point to general history and lifestyle patterns of the individual in question as the most important factors in predicting future violence. As John Douglas put it in his recollections of some of the FBI’s most notorious serial killers, “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”
It all goes back to the old “thickness of the folder” finding. In a classic assessment of instruments that accurately judged the severity of mental patients’ histories, the single most important factor turned out to be the thickness of a patient’s folder – in other words, the sheer length and volume of clinical history. Independently, none of the questionnaires or assessment tools provided much greater accuracy.
But what if there’s no past behavior to go on?
This should give us pause. Unfortunately, in the case of Guantanamo, the folders, or the various measures other than clinical assessments, are generally unavailable. These are far from regular prisoners and don’t come with case histories on a platter. The available tools for forming judgment are limited. So, what to do?
It’s a frustrating question, and I don’t pretend to have an answer. What I will say is that your response will likely depend on your answer to another question: would you rather risk an Abdullah Mehsud going free, but also release a lot of Murat Kurnaz’s in the process; or, is the potential downside of a Mehsud so great that it is worth keeping the Kurnaz’s if it also means minimizing the risk of a Mehsud-type error? It’s signal detection theory (SDT)—how do we discern the ratio of signal, or actual hit (in this case someone who will pose a threat), to noise, or the fog that contributes to both false alarms (Kurnaz is high risk) and incorrect misses (Mehsud is not)—made even more sticky and unmanageable because of the countless political biases and moral conceptions (and preconceptions) that it inevitably raises.
So, what do you think? How can we put our most mindful minds to work on a question that affects not just stocks or food choices but very real political, and perhaps most importantly, human outcomes? How do we decide absent the possibility of an obviously artful choice?
These five main food groups are important for your brain's health and likely to boost the production of feel-good chemicals.
We all know eating “healthy” food is good for our physical health and can decrease our risk of developing diabetes, cancer, obesity and heart disease. What is not as well known is that eating healthy food is also good for our mental health and can decrease our risk of depression and anxiety.
Infographics show the classes and anxieties in the supposedly classless U.S. economy.
For those of us who follow politics, we’re used to commentators referring to the President’s low approval rating as a surprise given the U.S.'s “booming” economy. This seeming disconnect, however, should really prompt us to reconsider the measurements by which we assess the health of an economy. With a robust U.S. stock market and GDP and low unemployment figures, it’s easy to see why some think all is well. But looking at real U.S. wages, which have remained stagnant—and have, thus, in effect gone down given rising costs from inflation—a very different picture emerges. For the 1%, the economy is booming. For the rest of us, it’s hard to even know where we stand. A recent study by Porch (a home-improvement company) of blue-collar vs. white-collar workers shows how traditional categories are becoming less distinct—the study references "new-collar" workers, who require technical certifications but not college degrees. And a set of recent infographics from CreditLoan capturing the thoughts of America’s middle class as defined by the Pew Research Center shows how confused we are.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.