BackgroundIn this prospective study, mentally disordered perpetrators of severe violent and/or sexual crimes were followed through official registers for 59 (range 8 to 73) months. The relapse rate in criminality was assessed, compared between offenders sentenced to prison versus forensic psychiatric care, and the predictive ability of various risk factors (criminological, clinical, and of structured assessment instruments) was investigated.MethodOne hundred perpetrators were consecutively assessed between 1998 and 2001 by a clinical battery of established instruments covering DSM-IV diagnoses, psychosocial background factors, and structured assessment instruments (HCR-20, PCL-R, and life-time aggression (LHA)). Follow-up data was collected from official registers for: (i) recidivistic crimes, (ii) crimes during ongoing sanction.ResultsTwenty subjects relapsed in violent criminality during ongoing sanctions (n = 6) or after discharge/parole (n = 14). Individuals in forensic psychiatric care spent significantly more time at liberty after discharge compared to those in prison, but showed significantly fewer relapses. Criminological (age at first conviction), and clinical (conduct disorder and substance abuse/dependence) risk factors, as well as scores on structured assessment instruments, were moderately associated with violent recidivism. Logistic regression analyses showed that the predictive ability of criminological risk factors versus clinical risk factors combined with scores from assessment instruments was comparable, with each set of variables managing to correctly classify about 80% of all individuals, but the only predictors that remained significant in multiple models were criminological (age at first conviction, and a history of substance abuse among primary relatives).ConclusionsOnly one in five relapsed into serious criminality, with significantly more relapses among subjects sentenced to prison as compared to forensic psychiatric care. Criminological risk factors tended to be the best predictors of violent relapses, while few synergies were seen when the risk factors were combined. Overall, the predictive validity of common risk factors for violent criminality was rather weak.

No abstract

No abstract

Aims: This prospective study was designed to replicate previous findings of an association between the platelet monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) activity and factors of relevance for criminal behaviour in a well-documented clinical study population. Methods: Subjects (n = 77, aged 17–76 years, median 30 years) were recruited among consecutive perpetrators of severe interpersonal violent and/or sexual crimes referred to forensic psychiatric investigation. Participants were extensively investigated by structured psychiatric, psychological and social workups, including state-of-the-art rating instruments and official records, and with laboratory tests including venous blood sampling for determination of MAO-B activity. A subset of 36 individuals had lumbar punctures to measure cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of monoamine neurotransmitter metabolites. Results: Platelet MAO-B activity did not show any significant correlation with assessments of childhood behavioural disorders, substance abuse, or psychosocial adversity, nor with any crime-related factors, such as scores on the Life History of Aggression Scale, the Psychopathy Checklist or recidivistic violent crime. No significant correlation was found between MAO-B and any of the monoamine metabolites. Analyses in subgroups of smokers/non-smokers did not change this overall result. Conclusions: The findings of the present study did not support the use of MAO-B as a biological marker for aggression-related personality traits or as a predictor for violent recidivism among violent offenders.