ABSTRACT
This article describes principles for developing risk category labels for criterion referenced prediction measures, and demonstrates their utility by creating new risk categories for the Static-99R and Static-2002R sexual offender risk assessment tools. Currently, risk assessments in corrections and forensic mental health are typically summarized in 1 of 3 words: low, moderate, or high. Although these risk labels have strong influence on decision makers, they are interpreted differently across settings, even among trained professionals. The current article provides a framework for standardizing risk communication by matching (a) the information contained in risk tools to (b) a broadly applicable classification of "riskiness" that is independent of any particular offender risk scale. We found that the new, common STATIC risk categories not only increase concordance of risk classification (from 51% to 72%)-they also allow evaluators to make the same inferences for offenders in the same category regardless of which instrument was used to assign category membership. More generally, we argue that the risk categories should be linked to the decisions at hand, and that risk communication can be improved by grounding these risk categories in evidence-based definitions. (PsycINFO Database Record
Subject(s)
Criminals/psychology , Criminals/statistics & numerical data , Sex Offenses/psychology , Sex Offenses/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires/standards , Adult , Humans , Male , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
Although sex offender risk assessment has progressed greatly over the past decade and a half since most states implemented the sexually violent predator/sexually dangerous person (SVP/SDP) laws, there continues to be limited applicability of such models to intellectually disabled sex offenders because there has been no empirical validation. However, SVP/SDP civil commitment programs have reported increased admission of developmentally disabled sex offenders. Differentiating sexual deviance, the primary factor predisposing most individuals to criminal sexual violence, from impulsive, immature, and inappropriate behavior stemming from cognitive deficits presents yet another challenge to the clinician tasked with performing such evaluations. This article reviews actuarial risk models and their limited applicability to mentally retarded sex offenders and offers a conceptual method of assessing the risk of recidivism in intellectually disabled sex offenders under SVP/SDP evaluation.
Subject(s)
Dangerous Behavior , Expert Testimony/legislation & jurisprudence , Intellectual Disability/diagnosis , Risk Assessment/legislation & jurisprudence , Sex Offenses/legislation & jurisprudence , Actuarial Analysis , Adult , Commitment of Mentally Ill/legislation & jurisprudence , Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders/diagnosis , Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders/physiopathology , Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders/psychology , Evidence-Based Practice , Frontal Lobe/physiopathology , Humans , Intellectual Disability/physiopathology , Intellectual Disability/psychology , Male , Middle Aged , Paraphilic Disorders/diagnosis , Paraphilic Disorders/physiopathology , Paraphilic Disorders/psychology , Pedophilia/diagnosis , Pedophilia/physiopathology , Pedophilia/psychology , Prisons/legislation & jurisprudence , Rape/legislation & jurisprudence , Rape/prevention & control , Rape/psychology , Secondary Prevention , Sex Offenses/prevention & control , Sex Offenses/psychology , Violence/legislation & jurisprudence , Violence/prevention & control , Violence/psychologyABSTRACT
This commentary seeks to extend the recent article by Sreenivasan et al, which supports the contention that case law history allows for the commitment of a sexually violent predator/sexually dangerous person (SVP/SDP) based on a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and absent a paraphilic condition. We argue that a clear sexual disorder must be present before a person can be found to be an SVP/SDP. A diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder is not enough.
