For decades, forensic psychologists have compared and debated the merits of actuarial and structured professional judgment (SPJ) approaches to violence risk assessment. Actuarial proponents have long argued that statistical algorithms outperform clinical judgment, citing a tradition of research dating to Meehl's landmark 1954 work which sought to apply data to the discourse. SPJ advocates counter that clinical discretion, when anchored in empirically validated risk factors, produces assessments that are equally accurate and more useful for risk management. The meta-analytic evidence accumulated over the past fifteen years offers forensic psychologists a clearer, more nuanced picture than either camp initially proposed. That picture has implications for instrument selection, courtroom testimony, and the quality of risk management recommendations that courts and institutions depend on.