Texas plans to exe­cute David Harris on June 30th on the basis of a pre­dic­tion in 1986 that he would be a future dan­ger even if sen­tenced to life in prison. Dr. Edward Gripon tes­ti­fied that Harris posed a sub­stan­tial risk of com­mit­ting fur­ther vio­lent acts, even though Gripon had nev­er met or exam­ined Harris. During his near­ly two decades on death row, Harris has had only minor infrac­tions, such as hav­ing too many postage stamps or hang­ing a clothes­line in his cell. 

In a 1983 brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, the American Psychiatric Association stat­ed, The unre­li­a­bil­i­ty of psy­chi­atric pre­dic­tions of long-term future dan­ger­ous­ness is by now estab­lished fact with­in the pro­fes­sion.” This same sen­ti­ment was recent­ly exam­ined more close­ly in a Texas Defender Service report, Deadly Speculation — Misleading Texas Capital Juries with False Predictions of Future Dangerousness, that inves­ti­gat­ed the unre­li­a­bil­i­ty of future dan­ger­ous­ness pre­dic­tions in Texas death penalty cases. 

Texas is one of only two states that relies pri­mar­i­ly on the con­cept of future dan­ger­ous­ness in sen­tenc­ing peo­ple to death. 

Citation Guide
Sources

New York Times, June 14, 2004. Read the Texas Defender Service study.