Chapter 10 Flashcards
Violence Risk Assessment
parole boards, prison release Review Boards, and forensic Review Boards must decide if an inmate or defendant is likely to commit future acts of violence if allowed back into the community.
The evaluator must inform the parole board about whether the offender poses a risk to others living in the community
assessment will focus on a review of risk factors. Risk assessment tools may be used to help render a conclu- sion on how likely the offender is to reoffend if he or she is sentenced to a community probation order (versus a period of incarceration). The assessment
will also examine the types of treatment or probation conditions that should be put in place to help manage those risk levels.
l. Society has a legitimate interest in being protected from violent individuals. But those individuals also have a right to be protected from harassment by authorities and from arbitrary arrest and detention based on mere suspicion.
should address a number of key questions:
(1) What is the nature of the violence that may occur? For example, is it likely to be physical, sexual, or both?
(2) What is the likely severity or seriousness of the violence? For example, will the individual punch or shoot his or her spouse?
(3) What is the frequency of the violence or how often might the violence occur? Is it likely to be an ongoing threat or a one-time act such as a planned bombing?
(4) How imminent is the violence? (5) What is the likelihood or probability that violence will occur? Is the chance
that the individual will engage in future violence low, moderate, or high?
attempt to address risk management. Risk manage- ment involves reducing the probability that an individual will be violent by describing the conditions that may increase or decrease the individual’s risk for violence.
Methods and Outcomes of Risk Assessment
can predict who will become violent, perhaps we can prevent that person from becoming violent.
e four possibilities, two accurate and two inaccurate. If it was predicted that a person would become violent and then that person does become violent, it is called a true positive. A true negative occurs when a person who was predicted not to become vio- lent turns out not to be violent. The two forms of error are called either a false positive (prediction of violence that did not come true) or a false negative (pre- diction of nonviolence that did not come true).
Types of Risk Factors
(1) historical or static factors
(2) dynamic factors
(3) risk management factors
have also begun to assess the importance of a fourth type of marker, called protective factors. Unlike risk factors, protective factors are those that decrease the likelihood that a person will be violent or reoffend.
Historical factors
historical risk factors or static risk factors. Such factors are part of a person’s history or are factors that cannot be changed through intervention or over time (i.e., they are static). Research sug- gests that the most useful risk predictors are historical and that past behaviour is often the strongest predictor of future behaviour. Factors in this category include past violent behaviour, early onset of first offence, childhood malad- justment, abuse of alcohol or other drugs, and attempted or actual escapes from psychiatric facilities.
personality disorder, major mental disorder, and psychopathy—all indicate impaired psychological func- tioning. Personality disorders include antisocial traits such as being manipulative, irresponsible, and exploitive of others, while major mental disorders include schizophrenia, which is often characterized by paranoid delusions that others are conspiring to do one harm. Psychopathy is a distinctive, extreme form of antisocial disorder characterized by a lack of empathy for others and a lack of remorse for cruel or violent behaviou
Dynamic Factors
Dynamic risk factors
variables that can fluctuate over time. Moods, attitudes, and thought processes are not fixed and can be responsive to treat- ment. A major dynamic factor is lack of insight into one’s own functioning, behaviour, or mental health problems. People who become violent also tend to have less awareness of the motives and behaviours of others. Persistent strong feelings of anger and hostility are also consistently related to violent behaviour.
Impulsivity, the inability to exert control over one’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviours, and lack of responsiveness to treatment are additional dynamic risk factors for violence.
Risk management factors
Violence is also a function of how well the adjustment of a potentially violent person is managed after that person leaves a treatment facility (Otto & Douglas, 2009). Stable, supportive environments after release lower the risk of violence. When the person has adequate housing and is capable of managing basic necessities such as food and finances, the risk of violence is reduced. Treatment after release is also critical. Those at highest risk for violence require more intensive post-release supervision and treatment. Treatment plans after release must address the specific needs of each person. I
Protective factors
variables that can compensate for a person’s risk factors and constitute strengths or resiliencies against adverse outcomes. Historically, the practice of violence risk assessment focused heavily on risk factors, to the point of being highly deficit focused. not all scholars agree about what should constitute a pro- tective factor. For instance, should the lack of risk factors be defined as the presence of protective factors or should obvious and measurable protective markers be present before we call them protective factors? Is a protective factor simply the opposite of a risk factor?
Types of risk assessments
Intuitive approaches are sometimes referred to as unstructured clinical judgment because no rules specify how a clinician should collect and combine information.
The three major approaches to risk assessment are unstructured clinical judgment, actuarial techniques, and structured professional judgment (SPJ).
Unstructured Clinical Judgment
earliest form of violence risk assessment, unstructured clinical judgment, involved rendering a decision about violence risk based on traditional clinical methods without the use of an assessment tool or approach. One reason for the relative weakness of clinical prediction is the lack of feedback about success or failure. When clinical psychologists make predictions about whether or not an individual will later become violent, they rarely find out whether the individual actually becomes violent at some later time.
Actuarial Techniques
actuarial prediction, was soon found to outperform clinical predictions of future violence in a number of comparisons (Mossman, 1994). Actuarial meth- ods of prediction require that relevant risk factors be systematically combined (typically using a statistical equation) to calculate an estimate of future violence. The risk factors and their weights in the equations are identified through prior research by collecting large amounts of data on individuals who have been followed for an extended time period (sometimes up to 10 years). Researchers uncover risk characteristics that best predict violent behaviour among that sample of individuals, and factors that are more strongly correlated with future violence are weighted more heavily in the equation.
This is called a nomothetic, quantitative approach. That is, it is based on characteristics identified in research on large groups of people and it relies on statistics. In comparison, clinical prediction is an idiographic, qualitative approach that focuses on a specific individual and relies on subjective judgments made by a clinician. Actuarial predictions are built on the findings of past research, and strictly clinical predictions are built on the past professional expe- rience of the clinician.
Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) is a widely used actuarial risk assessment tool
Spj Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) Instruments
Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) instruments were designed to combine the accuracy of actuarial methods with the flexibility of clinical decision making. Importantly, the SPJ model of risk assessment is meant to structure and augment the assessment practices of qual- ified evaluators conducting risk assessments by providing an evidence-based approach to risk assessment.
Historical Clinical Risk Management Scheme (HCR-20)
consists of a checklist of 6 protective factors and 20 risk factors: 10 assessing historical risk factors, 5 assessing present clinical risk factors, and 5 assessing future risk factors (Douglas, Hart, Webster, & Belfrage, 2013). The HCR-20 is rated and interpreted using a seven-step model. In Step 1, evaluators gather and document case information about whether a series of risk factors are present or how they may have changed over time
In Step 3, evaluators rate the relevance of each risk factor. Even though a risk factor might be present, it may not play a very important role in the behaviour of the specific offender being assessed.
her risk assessment formulation.
In Steps 4 and 5, evaluators use formulas and weighting to integrate case information. This involves thinking through possible risk scenarios or imag- ining what kind of violence a person might commit in the future and why.
Step 6 involves recommending strategies for managing violence risk based on information from the earlier steps. Finally, in Step 7, evaluators document their judgments about overall risk and indicate whether there are any risks other than violence, such as suicide.
START is a clinical guide for the assessment and management of seven short-term risk or strength factors (protective factors). The START also assesses a much broader range of outcomes than the HCR-20, including violence, self-harm, suicide, substance abuse, unau- thorized leave, self-neglect, and victimization. Like the HCR-20, the START is scored following a clinical interview and assessment, a review of records, collat- eral interviews with individuals who know the evaluee well or sometimes with victims, and behavioural observations.
High-Risk Offenders and Canadian Law
habitual offend- ers if they had been convicted of three or more indictable offences and were “consistently leading a criminal life.” Offenders with this designation could be sentenced to indeterminate imprisonment. The Criminal Sexual Psychopath Act was enacted the following year, and required mental health experts to identify and treat sexual offenders (Chenier, 2003). These two acts formed the foundation for Section 752 of the Criminal Code. In 1977, both acts were replaced with the first versions of the Dangerous Offender provisions of the Criminal Code.
Dangerous Offender legislation was introduced in 1997, with the enactment of Bill C-55. Under the new legislation, offenders deemed “dan- gerous” by the courts face indeterminate detention and have to wait 7 years for parole instead of the original 3 years. It is also easier to apply a dangerous offender (DO) designation since the act requires only one psychiatrist to testify at dangerousness hearing
any person convicted of a serious personal injury offence, but not yet sentenced, who constitutes a “danger to the life, safety, or mental/phys- ical well-being” of others, may be subject to a DO application from the Crown. Eligible offences include violent offences that warrant a minimum of a 10-year sentence and sexual offences.
. Previously, offenders convicted of serious crimes, including murder and high treason, could have their parole ineligibility period reduced to no less than 15 years under the Faint Hope Clause but this provision was repealed in 2011. The Parole Board of Canada determines whether an offender still poses a risk to society, and when an offender is eligible for parole and release into the community.
everse onus clause shifted the burden of proving a defen- dant did not meet DO criteria from crown prosecutor to the defence. Reverse onus provisions are often contentious because they are often seen to violate several fundamental freedoms outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
LTO designation primarily targets sexual offenders and was developed in response to concerns that many serious sexual and violent offenders did not meet DO crite- ria but nevertheless warranted more extensive supervision to protect the public. Currently, offenders who meet all of the following criteria may be deemed LTOs:
(1) He or she is convicted of a serious personal injury offence. (2) A prison sentence of 2 years or more is appropriate for the current offence. (3) There is a substantial risk the offender will reoffend, causing serious harm
in the future.
(4) There is a reasonable possibility that the risk posed can eventually be con- trolled in the community.
Thus, criteria for an LTO designation most often involves a future prediction of a specific kind of risk—future sexual violence. LTOs are typically managed through a regular sentence but can then be given an extended term of super- vision after release from custody (up to 10 years). During an LTO application, the prosecution has to apply to have court-appointed experts, typically psychi- atrists or psychologists, assess the offender to make recommendations about the above criteria. A hearing then follows and a judge (without a jury) renders the decision
Management Approaches to Reduce the Risk of Violence
Some scholars have argued that instead of focusing our efforts on trying to pre- dict violence, it might be more productive to focus on preventing and managing the risk of future violence
1).
One of the oldest models for conceptualizing forensic treatment—the Risk- Need-Responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation assumes that there are key, empirically based social and psychological risk fac- tors associated with offending, including violent offending, and that targeting dynamic risk factors in treatment will reduce reoffending rates
According to the risk principle, the highest level of treatment resources should be focused on the highest risk offenders. The need principle dictates that interventions should address dynamic risk factors or criminogenic needs (attri- butes of offenders directly linked to criminal behaviour, such as substance abuse or antisocial peer associations). The responsivity principle clarifies that treatment programs should be tailored to match the individual characteristics and needs of offenders to effectively reduce risk.
