ABSTRACT
This chapter explores how extremist offending, especially in the form of terrorist attacks, can elicit bias in those assessing its likelihood and imminence, due to its intrinsic capacity to induce fear in both the public's consciousness and within government. When national security is threatened, risk aversion typically becomes the default position of those who carry this risk. The potential for this to contribute to assessment bias is compounded by additional ethical, methodological, and assessor issues. These include the differential profiles of race, power, and privilege of assessors compared to assessees, the very low base rate of extremist offending and recidivism, and assessor antipathy or indeed sympathy for the underlying ideology or cause. Such issues may contribute to different forms of bias which are explored. Suggested methods for assessors to mitigate these biases are outlined, including the use of structured professional guidelines, maintaining self-awareness, objectivity, peer supervision, and an ethical perspective in practice.
