Recidivism rates of sex offenders managed under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003: an evaluation of actuarial justice.

According to the Dangerous Prisoners Sexual Offenders Act 2003 (DPSOA), an offender is considered 'dangerous' if there is an 'unacceptable risk' that he will commit 'serious sexual harm'. Current legislation operates within an actuarial justice framework, whereby increasing resources are spent on those considered at greater risk. There is limited research on the efficacy of this approach. The current study examines sexual recidivism rates of a sample of DPSOA offenders. Court files of 104 community-supervised dangerous sex offenders (M age = 50.7 SD = 10.8) were examined to determine date and type of re-offending. Recidivism was operationalised as time until arrest (for a sexual conviction/contravention). The overall level of sexual recidivism was low (7.69%). Kaplan-Meier analyses of survival curves identified no difference in rates between risk categories. While this likely suggests that they are not dangerous or an unacceptable risk, the strict conditions of supervision may be effective in preventing sexual re-offending. Further, limitations in empirically understanding the construct need to be considered.

Does getting away with it count? An application of stafford and warr's reconceptualised model of deterrence to drink driving.

Drink drivers continue to be disproportionately represented in road mortalities and morbidities. Given these costs, countermeasures that effectively reduce the behaviour (and its consequences) are imperative. Research has produced inconsistent findings regarding the deterrent effects of some countermeasures on drink driving behaviour, namely legal sanctions, suggesting other factors may be more influential. This study aimed to determine which deterrence measures based on Classical Deterrence Theory and Stafford and Warr's (1993) reconceptualised model of deterrence influence the propensity to drink and drive over the legal blood alcohol content limit of 0.05. In total, 1257 Australian drivers aged from 16 to 85 years completed a questionnaire assessing their self-reported drink driving behaviour and perceptions of legal sanctions. Consistent with previous research, past experiences of direct punishment avoidance was the most significant predictor of drink driving. Additionally, perceptions of personal certainty of apprehension were a significant (albeit weak) negative predictor of drink driving. Counterintuitively, experiences of indirect punishment were predictive of self-reported drink driving. Similarly, penalty severity produced mixed results as those who considered a penalty would be severe were less likely to drink and drive. However those that considered the penalty would cause a considerable impact on their lives, were more likely to drink and drive. Taken together, these findings suggest that while the threat of apprehension and punishment may influence self-reported drink driving behaviours, committing and offence while avoiding detection is a significant influence upon ongoing offending. This paper will further elaborate on the findings in regards to developing salient and effective deterrents that produce a lasting effect.

Psychological and Legal Aspects of Dangerous Sex Offenders: A Review of the Literature.

The purpose of this article is to review legislation on 'dangerous sex offenders' critically. Most modern legislation determines an individual to be 'dangerous' if he or she is at unacceptably high risk of committing further sexual violence. While the decision is judicial in practice, clinical testimony is utilised to inform courts' decision-making. Dangerousness may be a normative (legal) construct, but it is reliant on clinical assessment. Offenders are not at risk only due to historical factors; the possibility of committing sexual violence in the future is likely affected by temporal factors such as response to therapy, substance misuse, and proximity to victims. It is not clear that mental illness would place an offender at risk, although certain personality disorders are considered to be risk factors. In reporting actual risk, clinicians need to consider a range of variables, and not exclusively use actuarial measures or unstructured clinical interviews.