How effective are you at assessing threats of danger? Is it possible to accurately evaluate the likelihood of someone committing a violent act?
Gavin de Becker’s threat assessment framework offers insights into understanding and predicting violent behavior. He explores four key factors that contribute to the likelihood of violence. De Becker also delves into the nature of threats and how to evaluate their severity.
Continue reading to understand de Becker’s approach and learn how to better assess potential threats in your life.
Gavin de Becker on Threat Assessment
Gavin de Becker’s threat assessment framework assesses the likelihood of someone committing violence. This tool examines four key factors—justification, alternatives, consequences, and ability (JACA).
Justification: Does the person believe that violence is justified? De Becker explains that people who think they have a valid reason to use violence are more likely to do so. The threshold for justification can vary—for example, you might not view a simple disagreement like getting cut off in traffic as a valid reason to act violently, but others might.
(Shortform note: In The Coddling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt explore how changing beliefs can affect whether people see violence as justified. They discuss an argument that inflammatory speech is a form of violence because it causes emotional harm. This belief, they say, makes people more likely to see violence as a justified response to speech they find offensive. The authors consider this problematic—if we treat speech that causes stress as violence, then almost anything could be seen as violence. This mindset has real-world consequences, leading to riots on college campuses aimed at silencing controversial speakers.)
Alternatives: Does the person see any nonviolent ways to achieve their goals? De Becker says that people who believe violence is their only option are more likely to resort to it. For example, if a bullied teenager feels like they can’t reach out to anyone for help, they may see fighting back as the only solution they have.
(Shortform note: According to the FBI, certain behaviors can indicate that a person feels like violence is the only remaining option. You might notice drastic changes in their appearance or self-care, like suddenly getting tattoos with violent themes, losing a lot of weight, shaving their head, or neglecting basic hygiene. They may also start engaging in reckless behaviors with no concern for future consequences. Stopping medications or using substances, or withdrawing from their normal life patterns and obligations could all be signs that the person has no other alternatives and is making final preparations to act out violently.)
Consequences: What does the person think about the potential outcomes of a violent act? De Becker explains that people who anticipate negative consequences—such as getting a prison sentence or social stigma—will be less likely to engage in violence. Conversely, people who anticipate positive consequences—such as the attention that comes with infamy—or feel like consequences don’t matter are more likely to commit violent acts.
(Shortform note: Many people believe that harsh punishments prevent crime, but some criminologists disagree, arguing that the fear of getting caught is what actually deters criminals, not severe penalties. Contrary to popular belief, research shows that longer prison sentences do little to prevent crime. In fact, they can make people more likely to commit crimes in the future by exposing them to other criminals. Even the death penalty fails to show any measurable deterrent effect on crime rates. Criminologists suggest that increasing the chances of getting caught and ensuring swift punishment are more effective, even if the punishment isn’t very severe.)
Ability to Act Violently: Does the person have the capability to commit violence? According to de Becker, people who have the skills and confidence to carry out violent acts are more likely to do so. Typically, these include weapon owners and people with a history of violence. In other words, someone who regularly shoots firearms has a greater ability to act violently than someone who has never touched a weapon in their life.
(Shortform note: Research shows that people with a history of violence are indeed more likely to commit violent acts again. A US Sentencing Commission study found that 64% of violent offenders were rearrested within a few years of release, compared to only 40% of nonviolent offenders. Violent offenders also tend to commit more serious crimes when they reoffend, with assault being the most common new charge. They also reoffend more quickly, with a median time of 18 months to their first new offense compared to 24 months for nonviolent offenders.)
Threats as a Predictor of Violence
De Becker writes that threats can sometimes be a sign that someone will act violently but, at other times, they can be a sign that someone won’t. To determine which is the case, you must recognize what qualifies as a genuine threat as opposed to an intimidation.
When someone issues a real threat, they’re stating their intention to do harm without offering any conditions you can meet to prevent it—for example, “I’m going to make you regret what you did.”
However, if a threat contains words like “if,” “or else,” or “unless,” then it’s not a real threat but an intimidation. When someone makes an intimidation, they often want to avoid violence because they’re offering you a chance to prevent the harm they’re threatening. An example of intimidation is: “If you don’t stay off my property, I’m going to make you regret it.”
(Shortform note: De Becker distinguishes between intimidations and threats when it comes to violence, but mental health experts consider both to be harmful verbal behaviors. Threats and intimidations are both forms of verbal abuse. Verbal abuse involves using words to bully, demean, frighten, or control another person, which can include anything from yelling, name-calling, and swearing to more subtle behaviors like sarcasm, manipulation, and the silent treatment. The goal of verbal abuse is always to gain power over you and control you. This can lead to anxiety, decreased self-esteem, and other negative effects on your mental health.)
Assessing the Severity of a Threat
De Becker explains that, contrary to popular belief, threats often suggest that someone is less likely to act violently. This is because people who issue threats usually want to scare you rather than commit violence. Clues that a person only wants to incite fear include:
- Using graphic language: For example, a message describing in brutal detail how they plan to harm you. Subtler expressions like “I can’t let this go on” can signify a more serious threat.
- Anonymity: Anonymous threats usually aren’t carried out since, often, their purpose is to inspire fear.
(Shortform note: Threats, even those not intended to be carried out, aren’t protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that “true threats”—statements intended to frighten or intimidate others with serious harm aren’t constitutionally protected. This means you can’t claim free speech protection if you deliberately threaten violence against someone, even if you don’t plan to follow through. Thus, while people might often use threats to instill fear rather than communicate real intentions to commit violence, the law treats such threats seriously regardless of the speaker’s actual plans.)
But when should you take a threat more seriously? De Becker argues that you should pay close attention to threats that emerge later in a conflict. Late threats often represent a more calculated decision to use violence, rather than an immediate emotional outburst.
Also, if you hear about a threat indirectly, you should take it more seriously—for example, if a college friend tells you that their roommate has been making threats about their professor. De Becker recommends you report such threats because they could reflect an actual intent to harm. These threats aren’t being delivered to the person they’re supposedly threatening but to someone else that the person wouldn’t be trying to scare.
(Shortform note: The FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) refers to these indirect threats as “leakage.” They note that leakage may be more common in adolescents, possibly because they’re more likely to act impulsively and use social media. Leakage isn’t always verbal—it can also be through actions, like creating violent videos or artwork. Like de Becker, the BAU warns against dismissing these signs, as it’s often difficult to distinguish between harmless venting and genuine threats.)
De Becker points out that the impact of a threat depends on the recipient’s reaction. So if someone threatens you, avoid showing fear, as doing so can give more confidence to the person making the threat. Instead, calmly assess the situation, ask yourself whether you’re in immediate danger, and act accordingly.
(Shortform note: The FBI provides a guide for responding to threats and intimidations. When faced with a physical threat, they recommend three options: Run, hide, or fight as a last resort. For verbal threats, they advise recording the exact words and details about the person making the threat. If you receive a phone threat, try to keep the caller on the line and collect as much information as possible. For electronic threats, preserve the message and notify law enforcement immediately.)
