Risk Assessment in Criminology - Literature review Example

Student name: Course: Supervisor: Date of submission: Risk assessment in Criminology Introduction Assessment is defined as a Davies & Beech (2012) process of finding out about something to discover some issues. It is also closely related to correctional classification. Correctional classification instruments Davies & Beech (2012) do cover the offender’s needs and risk. The risk in this case refers to the Davies & Beech (2012) possible threat the offender poses to the community, other people, and self. Such factors of threat include; the offense’s level of danger, violation, current convictions and criminal history. Non-sex and nonviolent offenses in criminology are considered less dangerous Davies & Beech (2012) while sex offenses and violent crimes are more dangerous. During the needs assessment Davies & Beech (2012) of the offender, such measurement which are taken in to details include; criminal justice system, sentence, convection, attitude towards crime and issues pertaining mental health, treatment suitability, drug abuse and alcohols issues, companions, recreation and leisure, accommodation, marital and family status, interpersonal relationships, financial situation, employment and education Davies & Beech (2012). Contrary to classification Davies & Beech (2012), assessment is done more often on the offender not only for classification purposes but for other reasons during the process of correction. In the field of criminal justice, there is a need to have an accurate assessment Davies & Beech (2012) that upon release, failure of the offender to finalize the requirement of post-release, or remain confined the offender will cause no problems or not. To achieve this objective, the instruments of dynamic and static risk among others are used. Static factors are behaviors or elements Davies & Beech (2012) related to the offender that do not change over a period of time. Such elements include prior felonies, history of escape, and the severity of the offense Davies & Beech (2012). Mostly, in the criminology field, static instruments are commonly used during the classification of men rather than females Davies & Beech (2012). The reason for this observation is that most instruments in this category accurate categorize men offenders rather than their female counterparts. On the other hand, dynamic assessments are known to change over a period of time Davies & Beech (2012). These factors, therefore, need to be reviewed Davies & Beech (2012) once in a while to always place the offender in his place of behavioral change. The review will ensure the law-breakers receive the right assistance or supervision Davies & Beech (2012). Dynamic elements encompasses; financial status, abuse of drugs and levels of education Davies & Beech (2012). The instruments in this category have one advantage that they can be used without the need of Davies & Beech (2012) changing assessment to another to reassess the criminal. Unlike static factors, dynamic factors are deemed Davies & Beech (2012) applicable for both females and males. Offender risk assessment approaches Dynamic versus static In order to differentiate the most high risk offenders from low ones, risk assessment is required Davies & Beech (2012). This differentiation is vital both to the general public, correctional workers, courts and the police Davies & Beech (2012). Davies & Beech (2012) Risk valuations do give response to two areas of concern. These areas are: the level of the offenders committing another offence and, Davies & Beech (2012) the measures that can be put in place to lower the possibility of such offense from occurring. Assessment of potential longterm recidivism can be done using the static tool Davies & Beech (2012). Such as, historical factors like criminal history or the age when the offender committed the crime. However, Davies & Beech (2012) the need to apply the dynamic assessment is immensely vital. This is because; it evaluates the offenders risk level changes with time. To this regard, Davies & Beech (2012) the dynamic factors deemed essential are those which require intervention. Such factors include unemployment or substance abuse Davies & Beech (2012). Static risk assessment has been used in history Davies & Beech (2012) to predict longterm habitual possibility of risk. It has been used in sex offenders and general offenders Davies & Beech (2012). The challenge with this assessment Davies & Beech (2012) is that it does not have the capability of measuring the risk level changes. Dynamic factors such as pro-criminal attitudes or antisocial peers Davies & Beech (2012) have on the other hand, been applied in general recidivism. These dynamic risks have also been prearranged into actuarial risk scales which are valid Davies & Beech (2012). Dynamic factors in the past two decades, Davies & Beech (2012) had not yet been incorporated into the scales of sexual recidivism risk. However, currently, Davies & Beech (2012) they are being looked into how they can fit into sex offenses evaluation. The predictive accuracy of dynamic is as much as that of static in general. Dynamic knowledge is vital in supervising and treating offenders effectively. The knowledge on dynamic factors Davies & Beech (2012) also helps in making a decision on when to release an offender safely. On the other hand, static factors may only indicate the need of incarceration in offender Davies & Beech (2012), but not when the offender can possibly be released. Actuarial assessment Davies & Beech (2012), This assessment allows data coding in a specific order. These data gives the assessors a room to make a decision that pertain the offender. The decisions include putting into consideration factors that predicts individual’s violence. Such factors aiding this decision are thoughts, known risk factors focus or rules. The factors in this category are usually the static ones like variables of demography. These factors, hence, ensure contexts and samples diversity. One advantage of actuarial approaches is that it raises the risk assessment’s consistency. However, it has its drawbacks in that the professional judgemental is minimized, relevant variables in clinical evaluation are not prioritized, relatively static variables are over focused and risk in individual variations are ignored. Davies & Beech (2012) Despite the challenges actuarial assessment has been in use to liberate individual offender. To this regard several tools have been applied such as STATIC-2002/-99, LSI-R (Service Level Inventory-Revised, SORAG (Appraisal Guide on Sex Offender Risk), VRAG (Appraisal Guide on Violent Risk). This measure are not singly actuarial factors, however, they involve both dynamic and static measures as well. Structured clinical judgment This is information is collected by clinical expertise. It contains empirical knowledge compiled by the clinician experts. Such information will involve the required Davies & Beech (2012) information in order to correct a population, forensic and mental health of the offender. However, actuarial assessment is by much far preferred rather than the structured clinical judgment. Instruments applied in this assessment include: SVR-20 scale (Risk on Sexual Violence -20), (Assessment Guide on Spousal Assault Risk) VRAG (Violence Risk Appraisal Guide), HCR-20 (Risk on Clinical/ Historical-20). DBRS (Scale of Dangerous Behavior Rating) and the PCL-R (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised), SVR-20 (Risk on Sexual Violence), SAVRY (Risk of Violence in Youth in Structured Assessment) Unstructured clinical judgment This risk relies on the ability of the expert to judge the individuals risk from the knowledge and personal experience one has. Unstructured clinical judgment assessment is less reliable compared to structured clinical judgment. Case study: Risk assessment among the sexual offenders Davies & Beech (2012) Sexual offenders involve both adult and juvenile groups. Different assessments are applied in making decisions, due to the difference in the age groups. Such decisions include policies in the community notification, registration applications, facilities release, and level of care needed, type of placement, sentencing or disposition. The assessment approaches employed by experts include: actuarial, static, dynamic, structured and unstructured clinical judgment The importance of static or historical factors in offenders involving sexual act is quite vital. Such instruments used include Davies & Beech (2012) age, personality disorders, marital status, treatment attendance or failure, choice of victim (strangers, acquaintances or family members, the stage when sexual offending occurred, prior sexual offenses or sexual deviances. Clinical structured or unstructured assessment These measures have been used by experts. Unstructured format uses the intuition of the individual explorer on the offender. This makes the unstructured clinical measures unreliable. The unreliability results from the fact, that the assessors may not be critical. As a result, human values may not favor the conclusion drawn from the assessment on the offender. It is, however, noting that these measures Davies & Beech (2012) can not be eliminated in assessing the offender. The use of structured clinical guide remains another alternative. Different scales are applied by the evaluator to find out whether the risks related with re-offense on the law breaker are present or absent. From the result, he makes out a decision as per the risk level. The scales applied in this category include: SVR-20 checklist and RSVP (Sexual Violence Protocol Risk) applied in assessing the adults. Among the youths, ERASOR (Sexual Offense Recidivism Estimate Risk among the Adolescent) and J-SOAP-II (Protocol-II of Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment) are used. This assessment is quite reliable than the unstructured one in the application among the sex offenders. However, do lack consistence among the evaluators. Actuarial measures Davies & Beech (2012) Is a commonly assessment tool. It employs structured instruments which are valid. These tools have undergone extensive research supporting their application in assessing risk level in the offender. Several items are evaluated against the law breaker. After the evaluation, they are grouped together and given their weighting score. Such score would be high, moderate or low. Actuarial tools helps in giving insight among the victims act. The instruments used in this category include: VASOR (Vermont Sex Offender Risk Assessment), SORAG (Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide), STATIC-99 and PRASOR (Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism) Davies & Beech (2012). The challenge in this approach is that: It employed static factors to construct it. Therefore, it rarely employs the dynamism of the offender’s response. This factor makes it difficult for experts to find out the progressive change in the sex offender. It also minimizes the complexity nature of exploring the offender’s issue. The instruments used in this case also do give relative estimates of risk. Following this fact, these tools are not able to tell the expert truly the individual will or will not repeat the crime. Nevertheless, actuarial tools are the best in assessing sex offender needs. Scoring for different assessment Assessment Instruments Explanation Scoring method Actuarial Violent Appraisal Guide (VRAG) Davies & Beech (2012 It has 12-item in the actuarial scale. These items are used to assess whether the offender has a possibility of committing a crime of violence Davies & Beech (2012) within a speculated time frame after being released. Clinical record such as components of psychosocial history. The scores of PCL-R are incorporated Davies & Beech (2012) in the VRAG risk calculation Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) Davies & Beech (2012 This tool has 14 instruments. It is VRAG which has undergone modification. Is applied in sexual and violent offenders. Among the sexual law breakers, is used to offenders of a repetitive crime after sometimes once they are released. Clinical record such as components of psychosocial history. The scores of PCL-R are incorporated Davies & Beech (2012) in the VRAG risk calculation PCL_R (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised) Davies & Beech (2012 Is used in evaluating the possibility of an offender repeating the crime of violence. Holds 20-items in the scale of rating. This tool is applied among the adults male for forensic psychiatry and correctional purposes. It is does well in violence predicting across the populations of diversity Davies & Beech (2012 . Collateral information and interviews are used as score. YLSI (service inventory youth level) Davies & Beech (2012) Measures responsivity need and risk among the adolescent who have broken the system of justice. It has 43-item in the rating scale. Used among both sexes aging between 12 and 17 years Davies & Beech (2012). Collateral information, self-reported Information and information on the file among other formal assessments Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offence Recidivism (PRASOR) Davies & Beech (2012) Is a male sexual offender screening tool with only 4-item Recorded information on files STATIC-2002 /STATIC-99 Davies & Beech (2012) STATIC-99 has 10-items. It is used in assessing the future potentiality among male sexual offenders. Correctional systems Structured clinical guides HCR-20 Davies & Beech (2012) It houses 20-items. Applied in assessing risk of violence. It has 5 risk management factors, 5 clinical and 10 historical variables. The variables incorporate consideration of past, present and future Davies & Beech (2012). Score is based on 2(unquestionably present), 1(possibly present) and 0 (not present) giving a total score of 40 SVR-20 (Sexual Violence Risk-20) Davies & Beech (2012) It has 20 items. Used to evaluate risk of violence among the sex offenders. Among the items 2 handle future plans, 7 are made for sexual offences and 11 are for psychosocial adjustments Score in the scale uses Y(definitely present), ?(possibly present and N(not present definitely) ERASOR (Estimate Of Risk Of Adolescent Sexual Offence Recidivism) Davies & Beech (2012) Used in determining level of risk among the re-offense on sex. Applies both dynamic and static variables linked to sex offences Treatment, environmental, family and psychosocial functioning, behaviors and altitudes, sexual interests and sexual assaults history WRA-20 (Workplace risk assessment) It focuses on workplace factors such as situational and environmental which largely operate in work environs which lead to violence. Uses 0, 1, and 2 systems of the score to mark risk of violence. Conclusion Davies & Beech (2012) Reinforcing behavior change among the offenders needs combined efforts. Such efforts streams among the community members, experts and the individual need to adapt change. Different instruments are applied among the law breakers to assess the risk of committing a specific offense. Such instruments include the actuarial, the structured and unstructured clinical guide, dynamic and static tools. These instruments have their strengths and their limitation. Therefore, it is recommendable that the assessment of risk in an offender should use a combination of different tools. In addition, it is good to note that, however, static measures Davies & Beech (2012) appear to be the most weak in assessing risk due to its rigidity it remains as vital just as the others. The evaluation of the offender requires Davies & Beech (2012) the knowledge of different tools of knowledge by the concerned experts. These experts include the police, courts or psychiatrist in the clinical field References Davies G. & Beech A. (2012). Forensic Psychology: Crime, Justice, Law, Interventions. UK: Wiley and Sons Read More

The reason for this observation is that most instruments in this category accurate categorize men offenders rather than their female counterparts. On the other hand, dynamic assessments are known to change over a period of time Davies & Beech (2012). These factors, therefore, need to be reviewed Davies & Beech (2012) once in a while to always place the offender in his place of behavioral change. The review will ensure the law-breakers receive the right assistance or supervision Davies & Beech (2012).

Dynamic elements encompasses; financial status, abuse of drugs and levels of education Davies & Beech (2012). The instruments in this category have one advantage that they can be used without the need of Davies & Beech (2012) changing assessment to another to reassess the criminal. Unlike static factors, dynamic factors are deemed Davies & Beech (2012) applicable for both females and males. Offender risk assessment approaches Dynamic versus static In order to differentiate the most high risk offenders from low ones, risk assessment is required Davies & Beech (2012).

This differentiation is vital both to the general public, correctional workers, courts and the police Davies & Beech (2012). Davies & Beech (2012) Risk valuations do give response to two areas of concern. These areas are: the level of the offenders committing another offence and, Davies & Beech (2012) the measures that can be put in place to lower the possibility of such offense from occurring. Assessment of potential longterm recidivism can be done using the static tool Davies & Beech (2012).

Such as, historical factors like criminal history or the age when the offender committed the crime. However, Davies & Beech (2012) the need to apply the dynamic assessment is immensely vital. This is because; it evaluates the offenders risk level changes with time. To this regard, Davies & Beech (2012) the dynamic factors deemed essential are those which require intervention. Such factors include unemployment or substance abuse Davies & Beech (2012). Static risk assessment has been used in history Davies & Beech (2012) to predict longterm habitual possibility of risk.

It has been used in sex offenders and general offenders Davies & Beech (2012). The challenge with this assessment Davies & Beech (2012) is that it does not have the capability of measuring the risk level changes. Dynamic factors such as pro-criminal attitudes or antisocial peers Davies & Beech (2012) have on the other hand, been applied in general recidivism. These dynamic risks have also been prearranged into actuarial risk scales which are valid Davies & Beech (2012). Dynamic factors in the past two decades, Davies & Beech (2012) had not yet been incorporated into the scales of sexual recidivism risk.

However, currently, Davies & Beech (2012) they are being looked into how they can fit into sex offenses evaluation. The predictive accuracy of dynamic is as much as that of static in general. Dynamic knowledge is vital in supervising and treating offenders effectively. The knowledge on dynamic factors Davies & Beech (2012) also helps in making a decision on when to release an offender safely. On the other hand, static factors may only indicate the need of incarceration in offender Davies & Beech (2012), but not when the offender can possibly be released.

Actuarial assessment Davies & Beech (2012), This assessment allows data coding in a specific order. These data gives the assessors a room to make a decision that pertain the offender. The decisions include putting into consideration factors that predicts individual’s violence. Such factors aiding this decision are thoughts, known risk factors focus or rules. The factors in this category are usually the static ones like variables of demography. These factors, hence, ensure contexts and samples diversity.

One advantage of actuarial approaches is that it raises the risk assessment’s consistency. However, it has its drawbacks in that the professional judgemental is minimized, relevant variables in clinical evaluation are not prioritized, relatively static variables are over focused and risk in individual variations are ignored.

Read More