School Shooter Case Study Analysis
Dylan Cade Floyd, Doctoral Candidate
Department of Forensic Psychology, Walden University
FPSY-8126: Understanding Violence, Risk, & Threat Assessment
Dr. Chris Kladopoulos
April 29, 2024
School Shooter Case Study Analysis
In the shadow of serene suburban landscapes and the ostensibly safe halls of academia, the phenomenon of school shootings emerges as a stark aberration, challenging our perceptions of safety, youth, and societal health. The case of Charles Andrew Williams, the young assailant behind the tragic Santana High School shooting, serves as a poignant focal point for an exploration into the darkest corners of adolescent deviance and violence. This paper endeavors to unravel the tapestry of psychosocial, developmental, and environmental factors that culminated in a day of unfathomable violence, setting the stage for a comprehensive forensic risk assessment rooted in scholarly research and ethical considerations.
Drawing from a rich array of scholarly articles, this paper will provide an in-depth case summary of Williams' background and the fateful events of March 5, 2001, that left an indelible mark on the community of Santee, California. We will dive into theoretical perspectives that aim to explain the motivations and stressors that drive individuals like Williams to commit such acts, assessing the interplay of strain theory, the lack of positive psychosocial characteristics, and the significant role of peer dynamics. Furthermore, we will scrutinize the misconceptions surrounding psychotropic medications and their alleged link to school shootings, shedding light on the complexities of this discourse.
Through meticulous analysis, this paper will also examine the critical differences between risk and threat assessment in forensic psychology, recommending appropriate assessment instruments tailored to this case. Reflecting on personal biases, this inquiry will confront the potential weaknesses these biases may introduce, particularly when communicating forensic assessment results involving a juvenile given a life sentence. In alignment with this reflection, an analysis of current state laws pertaining to juveniles "bound over" to adult court will be presented, alongside a review of ethical concerns as delineated by the American Psychological Association's guidelines.
The synthesis of these elements will not only contribute to a deeper understanding of the Charles Andrew Williams case but will also offer insights into the broader implications for forensic psychology practice. It is through such scholarly inquiry that we can begin to forge pathways toward prevention, intervention, and ultimately, a more profound comprehension of the human psyche in its most troubled states.
Case Summary: Charles Andrew Williams
In the early spring of 2001, a chilling silence descended upon Santana High School in Santee, California, as Charles Andrew "Andy" Williams, a mere 15 years old, brought forth a tempest of violence that would forever mark March 5 as a day of tragedy. With the echo of gunfire, two young lives were extinguished, and the serenity of 13 others was shattered by injury and trauma.
Williams' journey to that fateful moment was a labyrinthine path of sorrow and disarray. Following his parents' divorce at the tender age of 3, Williams grappled with the turbulence of a fractured home. As he matured, the gravitational pull of narcotics ensnared him, with the seeds sown as early as 12 years old.
Upon relocating to Santee, Williams found himself amidst a coterie of peers whose troubled waters ran deep. The torment of bullying and the nefarious influence of Christopher Reynolds, a predator masquerading as a friend, further mired Williams in a quagmire of despair.
The eve of the tragedy was colored by academic reprimand and the sting of ridicule from Williams' supposed comrades, fueling his contemplation of suicide. With dawn came a resolve steeped in fatalism; Williams armed himself with a .22 revolver, stepping into a vortex of his own making.
The harrowing act unfolded within the confines of a restroom, where innocence was claimed, and pandemonium ensued. The aftermath saw Williams surrender and the community grapple with the incomprehensible.
A dozen years hence, within the austere walls of Ironwood State Prison, Williams ruminated on the sequence of events that led a young boy to become synonymous with sorrow. He spoke not with a plea for absolution but with a wish for comprehension. His narrative, a tapestry woven with threads of regret and introspection, reflects the complexities of a soul searching for redemption amidst the ruins.
Now, with the passage of time, the grown Williams, standing tall in stature but heavy with the weight of his past, contemplates the spectrum of his existence — from the vivaciousness of youth to the confines of a cell. The echo of his actions reverberates, a somber reminder of the fragility of the human condition and the profound responsibility to shepherd the young through life's stormy weathers.
As Williams endures his days in the penitential shadow, we are left to ponder the enigma of human behavior and the ever-urgent need to cultivate compassion, vigilance, and understanding within our halls of learning and beyond.
Risk Factors
In dissecting the tragic narrative of Charles Andrew Williams and the sorrowful day at Santana High School, we must navigate through a labyrinth of variables that may have shaped his journey to that fateful moment. This analytical odyssey ventures beyond the surface, delving into the intricate and often unseen developmental corridors that forge one's psyche, the invisible threads of psychosocial influence, and the enigmatic whispers of neurobiology.
The tapestry of an individual's early years is often laden with subtle cues and formative experiences. For some, like Williams, the crucible of development may bear the marks of relational turbulence, societal marginalization, or psychological strife, all of which can distort the mirror of self-perception and erode the bedrock of self-esteem (Langman, 2017). It is within these unseen chasms that the seeds of discontent and aggression may find fertile ground.
As the adolescent mind navigates through the social jungle, it may encounter predators in the form of bullying peers or violent imagery that saturates media landscapes. These encounters are not mere footnotes but active composers in the symphony of psychosocial dynamics that can crescendo into violent behavior, with each note resonating within the caverns of a developing consciousness (Bonanno & Levenson, 2014).
Cloaked in the shroud of psychopathy, traits such as impulsivity and remorselessness can weave their way through the behavioral matrix of a young mind. The association between these traits and juvenile delinquency is more than anecdotal; it is a correlation etched in the annals of empirical inquiry, suggesting a potential proclivity towards acts of violence within this demographic (Geerlings, Asscher, Stams, & Assink, 2020).
Beneath the observable lies a realm of neurobiological undercurrents where the architecture and circuitry of the brain such as the prefrontal cortex play their silent yet pivotal roles. Here, the volume and connectivity might whisper tales of impulsivity and antisocial behavior, contributing unseen verses to the narrative of a school shooter's psyche (Korponay et al., 2017).
Within forensic settings, the tools we wield to measure the contours of personality—be they PCL-R or MCMI-IV—serve as our lanterns in the dark, illuminating the often obscured pathways that may lead to violence. These instruments guide us in differentiating the complexities of personality disorders and assessing the potential risk for future violence (Haneveld et al., 2022; Sellbom et al., 2022).
In the grand tapestry of Charles Andrew Williams' actions, each thread—developmental, psychosocial, psychopathic, and neurobiological—interweaves to form a complex pattern that defies simple explanation. It compels us to reflect on the profound and multifarious nature of human behavior and the myriad influences that can shape a life towards a tragic end.
Mitigating Factors: A missed opportunity
Within the somber void where targeted school violence looms, a constellation of preventive stratagems emerges, each a star shining its light on the path away from aggression's event horizon. This celestial navigation through prevention's nebula unveils the cosmic interplay between human connectivity and the darkened corridors that lead to acts of violence in educational sanctuaries.
In the tapestry of communal life, each thread represents a bond, a potential ally in the collective quest to thwart the specter of school violence. By infusing neighborhoods with a sense of shared purpose and interwoven support, schools become fortresses not of walls, but of unified resolve (Bowen, Bowen, & Richman, 2002).
Vigilance is the watchword in the psychosocial cosmos, where early-warning systems scan the horizon for signs of distress. Interventions tailored to the individual stars at risk can gently alter their trajectory, guiding them away from the gravitational pull of violence and towards the sanctuary of understanding and care (Borum, Cornell, Modzeleski, & Jimerson, 2010).
In the aftermath of turbulence, the fabric of the school cosmos is often torn and frayed. Trauma-informed strategies stitch the wounds, fostering a regenerative process that reinforces the community's resilience against the aftershocks of violence (Alexander, 2021).
The physical domain of education, too, requires its guardians—measures of safety that stand as silent sentinels against the threat of intrusion. Yet, these guardians must not cast a shadow that darkens the educational journey but should serve as beacons of protection that harmonize with the nurturing essence of learning (Jonson, 2017).
Before the night falls, there is a twilight in which to act. Early interventions serve as the vanguard against the encroaching darkness, addressing the myriad needs of youth as they navigate the complex galaxy of their lives. By offering guidance through family, peers, and the scholastic environment, the stars of tomorrow are safeguarded today (Nader, 2013).
In venturing through prevention's nebula, we chart a course that is neither linear nor certain, but one that is illuminated by the collective luminescence of evidence-based strategies and the resolve of those who seek to preserve the sanctity of our schools. It is through these efforts that we can hope to transcend the darkness and chart a course towards a future where learning is cradled in the arms of safety.
Warning Behaviors
In the tragic case of Charles Andrew Williams and the shooting at Santana High School, a retrospective examination of Williams' own recounting of events prior to the incident reveals a stark and unsettling portrait of a young man's descent into violence. Through the lens of the eight warning behaviors of targeted violence, we can attempt to piece together the psychological puzzle that culminated in the tragic events of March 5, 2001.
1. Pathway: Williams' account of the events leading up to the shooting demonstrates a clear 'Pathway' to violence, characterized by his actions of planning and preparation. According to Williams, on the morning of the attack, he accessed his father's gun cabinet, selecting a .22 caliber pistol and bullets—an act that signified his intent and the practical steps he had taken towards executing the violent plan (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2013).
2. Fixation: While Williams did not articulate a specific fixation on a cause or individual, his narrative is permeated by a sense of preoccupation with his own mortality. His increasing thoughts of suicide and statements about desiring an end to his life suggest a profound fixation on death and escape from his perceived troubles (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2013).
3. Identification: The interview does not provide clear evidence of Williams identifying with previous attackers or weapons, but his desire to assert his identity and escape ridicule can be interpreted as a search for empowerment—a theme common among those who identify with attackers. Williams' longing to show the "real Andy Williams" with a display of violence may reflect a misguided attempt to command respect and assert control over how others perceived him (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2013).
4. Novel Aggression: Williams' past behavior leading up to the incident does not explicitly detail acts of violence, leaving 'Novel Aggression'—a new interest in or adoption of violence—difficult to confirm from the information provided.
5. Energy Burst: An 'Energy Burst,' or an increase in the intensity or frequency of behavior, is discernible in Williams' intensified substance abuse and reckless conduct. His engagement in more frequent and risky behaviors with his peers suggests a buildup of tension and a release of pent-up energy that could foreshadow a violent outburst (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2013).
6. Leakage: The 'Leakage' of violent intent was notably present in Williams' case, as he communicated his thoughts about attacking the school to a significant number of individuals—approximately 50, including a few adults. This sharing of violent intentions is a critical warning behavior that unfortunately was not recognized or acted upon by those around him (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2013).
7. Directly Communicated Threat: Williams' expression of a threat toward a teacher and his detailed discussion of shooting plans with his peers fall under 'Directly Communicated Threats.' These explicit expressions of intent to commit violence further highlight the missed opportunities for intervention by teachers, administrators, and peers who were aware of his statements (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2013).
8. Last Resort: The belief that there is no alternative to violence, known as 'Last Resort,' is poignantly illustrated in Williams' narrative. He speaks of accepting that he would die on the day of the shooting and viewing the act as the "easiest way out" of his struggles—an indication of a sense of hopelessness and desperation that led him to view violence as the only remaining option (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2013).
This narrative constructed from Williams' interview serves as a somber reminder of the complexity of targeted school violence and the importance of recognizing and addressing warning behaviors. Williams' case underscores the need for vigilance and proactive measures to identify and support individuals exhibiting signs of distress before they escalate to violence.
Risk v. Threat Assessment
In the intricate tapestry of forensic psychology, the threads of risk assessment and threat assessment weave distinct patterns in the fabric of violence prevention. Risk assessment serves as the predictive loom, methodically intertwining static and dynamic strands—past behaviors, personal traits, and contextual yarns—to forecast the likelihood of violent acts. Each thread is weighted by empirical evidence and historical precedence, creating a calculated estimate of potential future aggression (Reddy et al., 2001).
Conversely, threat assessment emerges as an intricate dance, a ballet of real-time steps responding to the unfolding drama of a potentially violent narrative. It is less about the probability of harm and more about the immediacy of a brewing storm. This approach zooms in on the swirling currents of intent and preparation, focusing the lens on an individual's explicit actions and communications that signal a brewing tempest aimed at a specific target (Van Brunt, 2015).
The American Psychological Association's guidelines for forensic psychology serve as the choreographer for these assessments, guiding professionals through the ethical quandaries and societal implications of their evaluative performances. The principles set forth by the APA are the stage upon which psychologists perform their duties, ensuring that each step is taken with the utmost care for ethical integrity and the well-being of the community (American Psychological Association, 2011).
Adding further dimension to this performance is the APA's ethical canvas and multicultural palette, which reminds us to paint our assessments with the brushes of cultural sensitivity and an appreciation for the diverse backgrounds of the individuals at the heart of these assessments. These guidelines serve as the color wheel, offering hues that represent the varied experiences of identity, context, and intersectionality, ensuring that the final picture is as complete and accurate as possible (American Psychological Association, 2010; American Psychological Association, 2017).
Forensic Risk Assessment Instruments
Navigating the intricate waters of forensic risk evaluation calls for a compass of empirically validated tools that can chart the course of an individual's propensity for violence. In this odyssey of assessment, the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) stands as a seasoned navigator, combining elements of an individual's past, present clinical signs, and future risk management scenarios to plot a course toward understanding violent tendencies (Douglas, Ogloff, & Hart, 2003).
In the realm of actuarial prediction, the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) emerges as an oracle of sorts, weaving together static elements of an individual's history into a tapestry that forecasts the likelihood of future violent acts. This tool, steeped in data and evidence, casts a quantitative gaze upon the shadows of potential recidivism (Yang, Wong, & Coid, 2010).
The Violence Risk Scale (VRS) serves as a bridge between assessment and intervention, a tool that not only measures the currents of risk but also aligns with therapeutic endeavors to calm troubled waters. It stands as a testament to the philosophy that understanding risk is a prelude to mitigating it (Wong & Gordon, 2006).
Yet, this quest for assessment is not without its challenges. The specter of cultural diversity looms large, demanding that our instruments of evaluation are not myopic, but rather panoramic in their view, capturing the nuances across cultural landscapes. This cultural compass ensures that risk assessment is not a blunt tool, but a scalpel, precise and considerate of the rich tapestry of human diversity (Shepherd & Lewis-Fernandez, 2016).
As I embark on this journey of forensic evaluation, it is crucial to select instruments with discernment, guided by the specifics of the case at hand, the depths of data available, and the need for cultural competency. The professional's judgment, informed by ethical guidelines, must be the steady hand that guides these tools (Rogers, 2000).
Personal Bias Reflection
Embarking on a self-reflective journey through the frosted wilderness of rural Alaskan justice, I, as a female detective embracing a philosophy of firm fairness, must tread carefully on the snow-laden paths of personal bias. These biases, like hidden crevasses, can jeopardize the integrity of my communication, especially when the frosty winds of juvenile life sentencing blow.
The steely resolve of 'tough' justice may cast a cold shadow over the malleable ice of juvenile rehabilitation potential. It's critical to acknowledge that youthful offenders are like young saplings in the Alaskan tundra, capable of growth and change despite the harsh conditions (Steinberg & Scott, 2003). Yet, the stalwart belief in 'fairness' can serve as a guiding northern star, ensuring that each juvenile's actions are weighed with equity and the possibility of redemption, even when they've wandered into the dark forest of serious crime.
As a woman in the often unyielding permafrost of law enforcement, I must be vigilant of the biases that might shape my interactions. The literature suggests that female officers can bring a unique perspective to the force, potentially offering a warmer approach to communication and empathy (Rabe-Hemp, 2008). However, the pressure to conform to a tougher image can sometimes push against the natural inclinations towards compassion and understanding.
In this remote corner of the world, cultural considerations loom large, like the towering presence of Denali, over every forensic evaluation. The cultural backdrop of each individual must be considered with the same care one would take when navigating the wilderness (Weiss & Rosenfeld, 2012). This cultural compass ensures that the communication of forensic assessment results does not get lost in translation across the diverse tapestry of the Alaskan populace.
To temper these biases, it's vital to employ forensic assessment instruments validated for juvenile populations, ensuring objectivity glistens like the crisp Alaskan stars against the night sky (Vincent, Terry, & Maney, 2009). This approach ensures that the results are communicated with clarity, untainted by the frost of personal prejudice.
As the sentinel of justice in this rugged terrain, I must constantly check my compass for biases that might lead me astray. By remaining vigilant and upholding the principles of 'tough but fair' justice, I can navigate through the ice fields of forensic assessment with integrity, ensuring that the warmth of fairness melts any cold bias that may lurk beneath the surface.
Sentencing Juveniles as Adults in Alaska
In the untamed legal wilderness of Alaska, the laws governing juveniles "bound over" to adult court are as multifaceted as the state's own natural landscapes. As per the statutes whispered by the winds of justice, Alaska's approach to juveniles sentenced as adults is both severe and intricate, reflecting a balance struck between the icy need for public safety and the warmth of rehabilitative potential.
The aurora borealis of Alaska's legal system illuminates a critical fact: children of any age charged with certain offenses can find themselves under the stern gaze of adult court jurisdiction. Despite this, Alaska harbors a presumption against the binding over of children younger than 14, signifying a glacial shift towards acknowledging the developmental chasm between youth and adulthood (Griffin & Szymanski, 1998).
This statutory stance reflects a deeper understanding, one that recognizes the tundra of adolescence as a terrain ripe for change, a time when the seeds of rehabilitation can be nurtured to sprout through even the most frozen ground. Yet, the state's laws, as stark and imposing as the Denali peak, remind us that certain offenses cast a long shadow, pulling young offenders into the adult realm where the consequences are as enduring as permafrost (May, 1998).
The narrative of juvenile justice in Alaska is thus a tale of dichotomy—where the howling wind of adult sentences may chill the bones of youthful rehabilitation. As research echoes through the valleys, evidence suggests that treating juveniles as adult criminals does not necessarily quell the storm of re-offense. Rather, it ignites a debate as timeless as the state's glaciers about the true essence of justice for its youngest residents (Fagan, 2008).
In the end, the Last Frontier's legal framework stands as a testimony to the dynamic interplay between the protection of society and the promise of redemption. It is a landscape where the law, in its quest to be both tough and fair, continues to evolve, like the ever-changing glaciers, in its treatment of those who stand at the crossroads of youth and adult consequence.
Ethical Considerations
In the solemn twilight of ethical deliberation, where the aurora of professional conduct meets the tundra of forensic practice, the American Psychological Association's guidelines stand as timeless sentinels guiding the way. Embarking on a case that may impact the trajectory of a juvenile's life, one must be particularly attuned to the ethical concerns that could arise.
The APA's "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct" (2010) serve as the bedrock, reminding us that our professional actions are rooted in principles such as beneficence and nonmaleficence, fidelity and responsibility, integrity, justice, and respect for people's rights and dignity. These principles, like the steadfast mountains of Alaska, demand that we consider the well-being of the juvenile and strive for fairness and accuracy in our assessment and reporting (American Psychological Association, 2010).
The "Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology" (2011), like the intricate network of rivers that traverse the Alaskan landscape, flow into every crevice of forensic work, shaping the contours of practice. They emphasize the importance of competency, informed consent, and confidentiality, and they illuminate the potential for bias and the necessity of maintaining boundaries between therapeutic and forensic roles (American Psychological Association, 2011).
Wading through the waters of cultural considerations, the "Multicultural Guidelines: An Ecological Approach to Context, Identity, and Intersectionality, 2017" provide a map to navigate the complex interplay of cultural factors that may influence the juvenile's behavior and experiences. These guidelines remind us to consider the ecological systems surrounding the individual, ensuring that our work is culturally informed and sensitive to the intersectionality of the juvenile's identity (American Psychological Association, 2017).
In the case of evaluating risk for targeted violence in schools, Reddy et al. (2001) underscore the nuanced nature of such assessments. Their work implies a need for comprehensive and contextual evaluations, aligning with the APA's guidelines that advocate for assessments that are not only scientifically grounded but also contextually and culturally sensitive.
In the unique way of the northern lights, these ethical guidelines and scholarly works dance together, casting a luminescent glow over the path forward. They remind us that our work must be conducted with the precision of an arctic fox, the depth of a glacial crevasse, and the warmth that is possible even in the coldest climates, ensuring that the young life at the center of our case is treated with the dignity and integrity that is their due.
Conclusion
As the aurora of understanding recedes into the twilight of knowledge, we arrive at the conclusion of this exploration into the ethical bedrock of forensic psychological practice. Throughout this essay, we have journeyed across the vast and nuanced landscape of ethical considerations, guided by the APA's principles and guidelines, which serve as the North Star for navigating complex cases involving juveniles.
We have seen that the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, fidelity, integrity, justice, and respect for rights and dignity are not mere abstractions but the very pillars that support the weight of our professional responsibilities. These principles compel us to act with a deep sense of care and fairness, ensuring that the vulnerable populations we work with, particularly juveniles, are afforded the protections they deserve.
The "Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology" provide a detailed map of the terrain, marking the trails we must follow to ensure competence, informed consent, confidentiality, and the avoidance of harm. These guidelines remind us that our role is not only to serve the court but also to uphold the highest standards of our profession, ensuring that justice is served in a manner that honors the dignity of all involved.
The "Multicultural Guidelines" expand our vision, revealing the rich tapestry of cultural diversity that influences and shapes the experiences of those we assess. They challenge us to recognize and integrate the ecological contexts, identities, and intersectionalities that are integral to a comprehensive and ethical forensic evaluation.
In the shadow of such towering ethical standards, we recognize the profound impact our work can have on the lives of juveniles bound over to the adult legal system. As we conclude this essay, we are reminded of the gravity of our task and the profound trust placed in us to navigate these ethical waters with precision, compassion, and an unwavering commitment to doing what is right and just.
By embracing these ethical principles and guidelines, we fortify our practice against the storms of bias and uncertainty. We ensure that our work stands as a testament to the best of forensic psychology, a beacon of hope and justice that shines brightly in the legal and psychological communities. Thus, we conclude, not at an ending, but at a new beginning, where each case is a fresh opportunity to apply our skills and knowledge in the service of those who stand at the crossroads of youth and consequential judgment.
References
Alexander, B. (2021). Public school trauma intervention for school shootings: A national survey of school leaders. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15), 7727. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157727
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf
American Psychological Association. (2011). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology
American Psychological Association. (2017). Multicultural guidelines: An ecological approach to context, identity, and intersectionality, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/multicultural-guidelines
Bonanno, C. M., & Levenson, R. L., Jr. (2014). School shooters: History, current theoretical and empirical findings, and strategies for prevention. SAGE Open, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014525425
Borum, R., Cornell, D. G., Modzeleski, W., & Jimerson, S. R. (2010). What can be done about school shootings? A review of the evidence. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357620
Bowen, G. L., Bowen, N. K., & Richman, J. M. (2002). Reducing school violence: A social capacity framework. In S. R. Jimerson & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), The Handbook of School Violence and School Safety (pp. 303–318). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Deming, P., Heilicher, M., & Koenigs, M. (2022). How reliable are amygdala findings in psychopathy? A systematic review of MRI studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104875
Douglas, K. S., Ogloff, J. R. P., & Hart, S. D. (2003). Evaluation of a model of violence risk assessment among forensic psychiatric patients. Psychiatric Services, 54(10), 1372-1379. https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.54.10.1372
Fagan, J. (2008). Juvenile crime and criminal justice: Resolving border disputes. The Future of Children, 18(2), 81-118. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D85T3XF0
Geerlings, Y., Asscher, J. J., Stams, G.-J. J. M., & Assink, M. (2020). The association between psychopathy and delinquency in juveniles: A three-level meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.101342
Griffin, P., & Szymanski, L. A. (1998). Trying juveniles as adults in criminal court: An analysis of state transfer provisions.
Haneveld, E. K., Molenaar, D., de Vogel, V., Smid, W., & Kamphuis, J. H. (2022). Do we hold males and females to the same standard? A measurement invariance study on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(3), 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.1947308
Jonson, C. L. (2017). Preventing school shootings: The effectiveness of safety measures. Victims & Offenders, 12(6), 857–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2017.1307293
Korponay, C., Pujara, M., Deming, P., Philippi, C., Decety, J., Kosson, D. S., Kiehl, K. A., & Koenigs, M. (2017). Impulsive-antisocial psychopathic traits linked to increased volume and functional connectivity within prefrontal cortex. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(7), 1169–1178. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsx042
Langman, P. (2012). Thirty-five rampage school shooters: Trends, patterns, and typology. In School shootings: International research, case studies, and concepts for prevention (pp. 107-136). Springer. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-5526-4_6
Langman, P. (2015). Charles Andrew Williams: Sorting out the contradictions. School Shooters. Info. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308221653_Charles_Andrew_Williams_Sorting_Out_the_Contradictions
Langman, P. (2017). A bio-psycho-social model of school shooters. Journal of Campus Behavioral Intervention (J-BIT). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321181410
May, K. S. (1998). Shifting Away from Rehabilitation: State v. Ladd's Equal Protection Challenge to Alaska's Automatic Waiver Law. Alaska Law Review, 15, 213-241. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/alr/vol15/iss2/4/
Nader, K. (2013). School shootings and other youth problems: The need for early preventive interventions. In K. Nader (Ed.), School Rampage Shootings and Other Youth Disturbances (pp. 17–36). Routledge.
Palumbo, J. S. (2016). Strain and the School Shooter: A Theoretical Approach to the Offender's Perspective. Eastern Kentucky University. Retrieved from https://encompass.eku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=etd
Rabe-Hemp, C. E. (2008). Female officers and the ethic of care: Does officer gender impact police behaviors? Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(5), 426-434. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235208000803
Reddy, M., Borum, R., Berglund, J., Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2001). Evaluating risk for targeted violence in schools: Comparing risk assessment, threat assessment, and other approaches. Psychology in the Schools, 38(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.1007
Rogers, R. (2000). The uncritical acceptance of risk assessment in forensic practice. Law and Human Behavior, 24(5), 595-605. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1005575113507
San Diego Union-Tribune. (2013). Charles "Andy" Williams reflects on Santana shooting. Retrieved from https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/columnists/sdut-charles-andy-williams-santana-high-school-shooting-2013may10-htmlstory.html
Sellbom, M., Flens, J., Gould, J., Ramnath, R., Tringone, R., & Grossman, S. (2022). The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-IV (MCMI-IV) and Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory-II (MACI-II) in legal settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.2013248
Shepherd, S. M., & Lewis-Fernandez, R. (2016). Forensic risk assessment and cultural diversity: Contemporary challenges and future directions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 427-438. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-52342-006
Sorrentino, R., Lapchenko, M., Marcus, A., & ... (2019). The myth of school shooters and psychotropic medications. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37(3), 330-344. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2429
Steinberg, L., & Scott, E. S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist, 58(12), 1009-1018. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1009
Van Brunt, B. (2015). Harm to others: The assessment and treatment of dangerousness. Wiley.
Vincent, G. M., Terry, A., & Maney, S. (2009). Risk/needs tools for antisocial behavior and violence among youthful populations. In J. Andrade (Ed.), Handbook of violence risk assessment and treatment: New approaches for mental health professionals (pp. 377-423). Springer Publishing Company.
Vitz, P. C., & Faria, A. A. (2022). The absence of positive psychosocial characteristics in the lives of mass school shooters. Journal of police and criminal psychology. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347074392_The_Absence_of_Positive_Psychosocial_Characteristics_in_the_Lives_of_Mass_School_Shooters
Weiss, R. A., & Rosenfeld, B. (2012). Navigating cross-cultural issues in forensic assessment: Recommendations for practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(3), 234. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pro/43/3/234/
Wong, S. C. P., & Gordon, A. (2006). The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale: A treatment-friendly violence risk assessment tool. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12(3), 279-309. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232483691_The_validity_and_reliability_of_the_Violence_Risk_Scale_A_treatment-friendly_violence_risk_assessment_tool
Yang, M., Wong, S. C. P., & Coid, J. (2010). The efficacy of violence prediction: A meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 740-767. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46094266_The_Efficacy_of_Violence_Prediction_A_Meta-Analytic_Comparison_of_Nine_Risk_Assessment_Tools
