BackgroundPsychiatric expert opinions are supposed to assess the accused individual’s risk of reoffending based on a valid scientific foundation. In contrast to specific recidivism, general recidivism has only been poorly considered in Continental Europe; we therefore aimed to develop a valid instrument for assessing the risk of general criminal recidivism of mentally ill offenders.MethodData of 259 mentally ill offenders with a median time at risk of 107 months were analyzed and combined with the individuals’ criminal records. We derived risk factors for general criminal recidivism and classified re-offences by using a random forest approach.ResultsIn our sample of mentally ill offenders, 51% were reconvicted. The most important predictive factors for general criminal recidivism were: number of prior convictions, age, type of index offence, diversity of criminal history, and substance abuse. With our statistical approach we were able to correctly identify 58-95% of all reoffenders and 65-97% of all committed offences (AUC = .90).ConclusionsOur study presents a new statistical approach to forensic-psychiatric risk-assessment, allowing experts to evaluate general risk of reoffending in mentally disordered individuals, with a special focus on high-risk groups. This approach might serve not only for expert opinions in court, but also for risk management strategies and therapeutic interventions.

Court-mandated treatments imply a dual role for therapy providers not only of caring for, but also of having control over, involuntary clients. The impact of legal coercion on the therapeutic relationship and feelings of stigma is widely regarded as negative and detrimental for treatment outcomes. This point of view stands in contrast to advocates of the perspective that involuntary treatment can ameliorate social functioning and thus promote a better quality of life. Regarding other outcome measures, there is evidence that offender treatment is effective and leads to reduced recidivism in criminal behavior. This narrative review provides an overview of research assessing the effects of mandatory treatment on therapeutic process and outcome factors. We conclude that legal mandatory treatment does not have to necessarily result in perceived coercion and reduced satisfaction with treatment and that a caring and authoritative treatment style aids a favorable therapeutic alliance, motivation, and therapy outcomes.

Background There is evidence for two different types and/or sources of mental illness stigma, namely the display of psychiatric symptoms and the use of psychiatric service institutions. However, no current study has compared the two. Furthermore, gaps exist in our knowledge of both types of stigma. Little is known about the perceived stigma of specific psychiatric service treatment environments, for instance forensic settings. In addition, systematic research on stigma attached to symptoms of personality disorders in the general population is scarce, and for borderline personality disorder, nonexistent. Methods We conducted a representative survey of the general population (N = 2207) in the canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland. Participants were asked to read a vignette depicting either the psychiatric symptoms of a fictitious character or a psychiatric service institution to which the character had been admitted, and indicate desired social distance (an indicator for stigma). Type of symptoms, type of psychiatric service, dangerousness, and gender were systematically varied between vignettes. Findings Desired social distance was significantly lower in relation to psychiatric service use than to psychiatric symptoms. Overall, symptoms of alcohol dependency, behavior endangering others, and the fictitious character's being male tend to increase stigmatization. Interestingly, the character's being hospitalized in a psychiatric unit at a general hospital and also respondent familiarity with psychiatric services tend to decrease stigmatization. Interpretation Familiarity of the general population with psychiatric patients should be increased. Furthermore, treatment in psychiatric units located within general hospitals should be promoted, as such treatment is associated with decreased stigma.

At triage, violence risk assessment should consider the presence of antisocial behaviour and violent victimisation, substance use, male gender and frequency of inpatient admissions. Common treatment targets for the prevention of post-diagnostic violence include criminality and victimisation. Treatment of positive symptoms should be of greater emphasis for individuals without a history of pre-diagnostic violence.