ROAD MAP TO VIOLENCE – WHAT CAN WE DO TO BETTER PREDICT VIOLENCE?

There is no single roadmap to understanding the complexity of human behavior in general and homicide in particular. If such a roadmap existed, the rate of domestic violence homicide might be reduced to zero. Human behavior is influenced by a combination of psychological, physiological, social, cultural, and situational variables. These interact in ways that are often difficult to predict while, it is now accepted that the singular nature versus nurture argument remains ambiguous.

Research into violent behavior prediction has largely shifted from deterministic ideas (“this person will commit murder”) toward probabilistic frameworks grounded in Criminology and Forensic Psychology. Early efforts focused on identifying stable traits—such as antisocial personality features or prior violent history—but modern approaches emphasize structured professional judgment and actuarial tools. Instruments like the HCR-20 (Historical, Clinical, Risk Management) integrate static factors (e.g., past violence) with dynamic ones (e.g., current stressors), producing risk estimates rather than predictions of specific acts. Even at their most refined, these tools yield modest predictive accuracy and are better at identifying low-risk individuals than definitively isolating those who will become violent (Douglas et al., 2013; Skeem & Monahan, 2011).

A central limitation arises from the statistical nature of risk modeling. Violence, particularly lethal violence, is a low base-rate event, which complicates prediction. Even tools with relatively strong validity can produce high rates of false positives when applied broadly. This is a well-known issue in Risk Assessment, where the tradeoff between sensitivity (catching true positives) and specificity (avoiding false accusations) is unavoidable. As a result, predictions tend to be framed in terms of group-level probabilities rather than individual certainties, limiting their utility for forecasting precise outcomes like homicide (Monahan, 2006; Fazel et al., 2012).

Neuroscientific and biological perspectives add further nuance but not determinism. Research in Neuroscience has linked aggression to factors such as amygdala reactivity, prefrontal cortex regulation, and neurochemical influences like serotonin imbalance. However, these biological correlates are neither necessary nor sufficient causes of violence. They interact with environmental inputs—such as trauma, social context, and situational triggers—making outcomes highly contingent. This aligns with the broader Biopsychosocial Model, which underscores that no single domain can reliably forecast lethal behavior (Blair, 2016; Raine, 2013).

The concept described as “terminal rage” is not formally recognized in empirical literature but overlaps with constructs studied in Affective Science and Emotion Regulation. Researchers examine how acute emotional arousal, particularly anger, interacts with cognitive appraisal and impulse control. Episodes of extreme violence are often preceded by rapid escalation, but this escalation is nonlinear and context-sensitive. Factors such as perceived threat, substance intoxication, and social cues can abruptly alter trajectories, making the precise tipping point difficult to define or measure (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Gross, 2015).

Contemporary work in Predictive Modeling, including machine learning, has attempted to improve accuracy by analyzing large datasets of behavioral and demographic variables. While some models show incremental gains over traditional methods, they remain constrained by data quality, bias, and interpretability issues. Importantly, these systems often replicate existing inequalities in criminal justice data and can overestimate risk in certain populations. Ethical concerns about surveillance, autonomy, and due process further limit their application, especially when predictions could influence legal outcomes (Berk et al., 2021; Dressel & Farid, 2018).

Given these limitations, the field has increasingly emphasized prevention over prediction. Interventions focus on modifiable risk factors such as substance abuse, access to weapons, conflict de-escalation, and mental health support. Programs informed by Public Health approaches treat violence as a preventable outcome shaped by environmental conditions rather than an inevitable act by identifiable individuals. This shift reflects a pragmatic recognition: while science cannot pinpoint the exact moment anger becomes lethal, it can reduce the likelihood that such a moment occurs at all (World Health Organization, 2014; Skeem & Mulvey, 2020). This must include changes in bail requirements to line up with level of risk based upon risk assessment tools.

Because prediction is limited, researchers and practitioners often rely on retrospective analysis to better understand how lethal domestic violence develops and becomes manifest. One of the most important tools in this effort is the psychological autopsy. A psychological autopsy involves the systematic study of an individual case after a homicide has occurred, examining the behavioral patterns, personal history, interpersonal dynamics, and situational stressors that preceded the fatal event. By reconstructing the timeline leading up to the incident, investigators can spot behaviors, threats, or escalating patterns/actions that may have served as warning indicators. I have written about the importance of these single, case-study retrospectives in several posts across several platforms in recent years starting in 2013. As the active shooter scenario becomes a weekly or monthly failing, they often have a robust online presence with some foreshadowing of their proclivities for violence.

How can these individuals be captured before they act on growing impulses relies mostly on luck. A growing number of agencies are working on models that afford citizens or family members ways to communicate with law enforcement when concern over a particular person becomes warranted; in an effort to reduce risk to the public.

By examining the intricacies of predicting violence, particularly in the context of domestic abuse, the findings from the psychological autopsy published by Allanach et al. (2011) in the Maine Monitor underscore the importance of identifying red flags that signify an elevated risk to victims. The study highlights that pre-incident behaviors—such as escalating threats, obsessive jealousy, stalking, and substance abuse—often serve as critical indicators of potential violence. These patterns reveal a troubling trajectory toward aggression, suggesting that individuals exhibiting these behaviors may be more likely to commit acts of violence. Moreover, the research emphasizes the need for heightened awareness and intervention strategies tailored to recognize these warning signs. By integrating insights from psychological autopsies with existing behavioral science, we can enhance our ability to predict and ultimately prevent violent outcomes, fostering safer environments for those at risk.

This comprehensive understanding underscores the necessity of proactive measures and support systems to address the complex dynamics surrounding violence.

While any single indicator may not predict lethal violence on its own, the presence of multiple red flags—especially when they escalate in frequency or intensity—can signal an increased level of risk. In turn, this requires a change in protective measures and enhanced awareness of danger.

When psychological autopsies are conducted across many cases, patterns begin to emerge. Researchers can compare incidents to identify commonalities in offender behavior, relationship dynamics, and situational triggers. This comparative approach allows professionals in law enforcement, victim advocacy, and social services to develop risk assessment frameworks based on recurring patterns rather than isolated incidents. There is no need to reinvent the wheel over and over. Because over time, the aggregation of case studies contributes to a growing body of knowledge about how lethal domestic violence often unfolds.

The practical value of identifying these patterns lies in prevention. If certain clusters of behaviors consistently appear prior to domestic violence homicide, then those behaviors may provide justification for earlier intervention and changes in bail conditions. Police officers responding to domestic disturbance calls, for example, may be able to recognize warning signs that indicate a case is moving toward a high-risk trajectory. Similarly, social service agencies and domestic violence advocates can use red flag indicators to prioritize protective resources for victims who may be at greater danger.

Early stopping and intervention strategies may include enhanced monitoring of high-risk offenders, stricter enforcement of protective orders, coordinated responses among law enforcement and victim services, and when necessary, legal containment measures designed to reduce the immediate threat posed by the abuser. While such interventions cannot eliminate all risk, they may significantly increase the opportunity to interrupt the progression toward lethal violence keeping both victim and abuser on level ground.

Ultimately, the goal of studying domestic violence homicide through psychological autopsies is not to claim perfect predictive ability, but rather to improve the capacity of institutions and protective services to recognize danger earlier and respond more effectively. By understanding the patterns that frequently precede lethal incidents, professionals can move from purely reactive responses toward more proactive prevention strategies. In this way, the careful study of past tragedies may provide insights that help prevent future ones.

One example of this approach is the report Psychological Autopsy of the June 13, 2011 Dexter, Maine Domestic Violence Homicides and Suicide conducted by Ronald Allanach, Brian Gagan, Michael Sefton, and Joseph Loughlin. The study examined the murders of Amy Lake and her two children, Coty and Monica, who were killed by Amy’s estranged husband, Steven Lake, before he took his own life. The research team conducted dozens of interviews and reviewed extensive documentary evidence to reconstruct the behavioral trajectory that led to the killings (Allanach et al., 2011).

The purpose of such psychological autopsies is not simply to document a tragedy but to identify warning signs that might have been observable before the lethal event occurred. These indicators are commonly referred to as “red flags.” They may include escalating threats, stalking behavior, obsessive jealousy, attempts to isolate the victim, violations of protection orders, substance abuse, possession or use of weapons in domestic disputes, and explicit statements indicating homicidal or suicidal intent. While any single behavior may not predict lethal violence, the clustering and escalation of these indicators can signal a significantly increased level of risk.

In the Dexter case, investigators found a pattern of escalating threats and coercive control in the months preceding the murders. Steven Lake had previously been charged with criminal threatening and had reportedly held a firearm during an earlier confrontation with his family. Despite these warning signs, he was released on relatively low bail and remained able to access weapons prior to the killings (Allanach et al., 2011). The psychological autopsy concluded that multiple systemic gaps—particularly in bail decisions, firearm restrictions, and interagency communication—may have allowed the situation to escalate toward lethal violence.

When psychological autopsies are conducted across multiple cases, patterns begin to emerge. Researchers can compare incidents to identify common behavioral trajectories and systemic vulnerabilities that precede domestic violence homicide. In the Dexter study alone, the authors produced more than fifty recommendations designed to strengthen the response of law enforcement, courts, and social service agencies to high-risk domestic violence situations. These recommendations included stricter bail practices for domestic violence offenders, improved firearm surrender enforcement, better information sharing among agencies, and stronger victim notification procedures (Allanach et al., 2011).

The practical value of identifying such patterns lies in prevention. If certain combinations of behaviors consistently appear prior to lethal domestic violence incidents, those behaviors may provide justification for earlier intervention, a dangerousness hearing, or revocation of bail. Police officers responding to domestic disturbance calls, for example, may recognize warning indicators suggesting that a case is moving toward a high-risk trajectory. Likewise, victim advocates and social service providers can use lethality indicators to prioritize protective services for individuals who face the greatest danger.

Early stopping and intervention strategies may involve enhanced monitoring of high-risk offenders, stricter enforcement of protective orders, coordinated responses among law enforcement and social service agencies. When necessary the legal containment of individuals whose behavior indicates a significant risk of violence is called for. These measures may include higher bail thresholds, firearm removal, electronic monitoring, or specialized domestic violence court supervision.

Ultimately, the goal of psychological autopsy research is not to claim perfect predictive ability but to increase the capacity of institutions to recognize danger earlier and respond more effectively.

By examining the patterns that frequently precede domestic homicide, investigators and policymakers can move beyond purely reactive responses and toward more proactive prevention strategies. The careful study of past tragedies, such as the Dexter, Maine case, demonstrates how systematic analysis of behavioral warning signs can inform policy, improve risk assessment, and potentially save lives.

References

Allanach, R., Gagan, B., Sefton, M., & Loughlin, J. (2011). Psychological Autopsy of the June 13, 2011 Dexter, Maine Domestic Violence Homicides and Suicide. Maine Monitor. https://themainemonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Dexter-DVH-Psychological-Autopsy-Final-Report-112811-111.pdf