NCJ Number
221721
Journal
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice Volume: 7 Issue: 4 Dated: 2007 Pages: 1-63
Date Published
2007
Length
63 pages
Annotation
This study provides an overview of the historical developments in the area of clinical forensic risk assessment.
Abstract
Results show that although there have been great advancements in the field of risk assessment during the last decade, current assessments are limited due to insufficient training of the assessors and non-standardized use of the available assessment tools. Assessing risk for recidivism in forensic populations is a complex task to be mastered by forensic mental health professionals. The results of such assessments have extensive implications for both the criminal and civil justice systems and society at large. This study provides an overview of the past and current state of affairs of clinical-forensic risk assessment. Although the field of risk assessment has dramatically improved during the past few decades, there remains a heated debate over the general approach to risk assessment and which instruments are best utilized in any given case. Given the potentially fatal consequences of violent offenses in contrast to drug or property offenses, only the prediction of violent recidivism is considered in the present paper. As males commit a disproportionate amount of violence in comparison to females and the vast majority of the risk assessment literature is confined to incarcerated males; only the prediction of violent recidivism in incarcerated males is discussed. The first section begins with a discussion of the criterion prediction variables utilized in the assessment of risk for violence. A summary of important landmark cases and an introduction into the clinical versus statistical prediction debate forms the second section. The third section is an overview of the historical stages of risk assessment research. Following that, is a discussion of some of the prediction tools currently used in the assessment of violent, sexually violent, and domestically violent recidivism. Finally, suggestions to promote the state of the art in clinical-forensic risk assessment are offered. Figure, tables, notes, references