Numerous instruments are available to clinicians for evaluating sex offenders' reoffense risk. Although they have demonstrated effectiveness in predicting recidivism significantly better than unstructured clinical evaluation, little is known about their predictive accuracy in subgroups of sexual offenders or in the long term. This study was undertaken to evaluate the predictive accuracy of nine instruments (VRAG, SORAG, RRASOR, Static-99, Static-2002, RM2000, MnSOST-R, SVR-20, PCL-R) among three groups of sexual offenders across a 15-year follow-up period. The results indicate that these instruments yielded marginal to modest predictive accuracy for sexual recidivism. A more detailed study of aggressor subgroups indicated that in both the short and the long term, these instruments were more effective at predicting the sexual recidivism of child molesters and the violent and nonviolent recidivism of rapists. Finally, although mixed offenders sexually reoffend more often and more rapidly than do rapists or child molesters, firm conclusions cannot be drawn because of the small number of mixed offenders in the sample.
Risk assessment practices have evolved considerably over the past three decades. Structured assessments of recidivism risk allow for the proper identification of criminogenic needs, which in turn, allow decision makers to make informed recommendations regarding criminal justice interventions and measures. Although actuarial assessments are common practice, situations exist where evaluators may call into doubt the risk assessment’s conclusions, and may exercise their discretionary professional judgment to adjust the risk rating. Despite being common practice, clinical overrides have been the subject of very little empirical work. The aim of the current study is to examine the impact of clinical overrides on a large sample of individuals (N = 3,646) who were assessed using the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI). Findings demonstrate that upward overrides produce different results than downward overrides. The practical and theoretical implications of these results are discussed.
The quality of risk assessment instruments has improved greatly during the last 40 years. While assessing protective factors has become common practice, with some instruments now devoted entirely to such assessments, little is known about the effect of risk and protective factors on recidivism. The present study investigates the effects (promotive or buffering protective) of protective factors captured by the LS/CMI for a sample of 18,031 convicted adult males under the supervision of provincial services in Canada. Effects of protective factors and possible interactions between risk and protective factors were investigated using moderation analyses. Results indicate that protective factors can be both promotive and buffering protective for risk and that the benefits of protective factors are related to the risk to which people are exposed. Patterns of protective effects appear to differ for general and violent recidivism. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.
G E N E V I È V E P A R E N TThis article explores the notions of 'healing' and 'reconciliation' as they are used in the literature on peacebuilding. It argues that these notions are used vaguely and that they are deployed to discriminate between 'bottom-up' and 'top-down' approaches to peacebuilding. As such, they render invisible complex connections between the psycho-social processes associated with healing and the political processes associated with reconciliation. Numerous programmes and processes of peacebuilding are conceived upon the distinction between healing and reconciliation. The article examines the effects of this distinction and argues that where healing and reconciliation are disconnected, peacebuilding produces experiences of secondary victimization that undermine peace. The case of post-genocide Rwanda is used to support this argument.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.