Psychiatrists and psychologists who participate in dangerous offender hearings are accorded "expert status" by the courts for the long term prediction of violent recidivism. The clinical and judicial bases for such involvement are reviewed and critiqued. Given the frailties of our predictive abilities, the most prudent course would be for mental health experts to eschew dangerous offender determinations. Since this alternative appears unlikely, tentative guidelines are offered to reduce grave errors in testimony given at dangerous offender hearings.