Clinical Assessment of Homicide Offenders

Abstract

Clinical psychologists are sometimes asked to provide operational support to senior investigating officers in major crime inquiries including murder, abduction, and serious violent and sexual assault. Working directly with police officers investigating an offense inevitably forces psychologists to focus on the phenomenology of the offense. This can lead to an enhanced understanding of the critical relationship between the detail of the crime scene and the offender. This article sets out some of the relevant theoretical frameworks that underpin clinical psychologists' role in the police investigative context. It is argued that such offense analysis should already be a routine component of forensic clinical assessment; however, anecdotal evidence would indicate that this is not so. Improving this aspect of the assessment process, when used in conjunction with other actuarial and structured clinical approaches, should improve any attempts at treatment planning and risk assessment.

Incorporating index offence analysis into forensic clinical assessment

“…The suggestion that index offence information may not receive adequate consideration by forensic/clinical professionals receives some support from Fallon (2007), who explored the level of knowledge of patients' index offences among staff in a medium secure unit. Although Fallon found a greater awareness of index offence information among qualified and more senior staff, in support of West (2000) he reports most staff had not seen witness depositions or crime scene photographs and many front-line staff possessed only a limited awareness of their patients' index offences. West (2000) outlined reasons why clinicians may not want to consider index offence information.…”

“…Although Fallon found a greater awareness of index offence information among qualified and more senior staff, in support of West (2000) he reports most staff had not seen witness depositions or crime scene photographs and many front-line staff possessed only a limited awareness of their patients' index offences. West (2000) outlined reasons why clinicians may not want to consider index offence information. These include notions of clinical impartiality and not wanting to be aligned to agents of social control, and believing such knowledge might compromise their therapeutic capacity.…”

“…the most recent data, and so avoid the more difficult search for the original documents. The present authors suggest these problems can be remedied with the aid of a structured guide for the analysis of an offender's index offence, such as the one developed by the present authors based on West (2000). Following the principles of functional analysis (Sturmey, 1996), the guide sets out a series of questions that can assist the practitioner in conducting a detailed examination of events and actions before, during, and after the index offence (see Appendix).…”

“…the last set of criminal actions that brought an offender into contact with the criminal justice system. The present authors suggest that if practitioners give more focus to the circumstances of the offence, then their analyses can be used to generate more informed hypotheses about the aetiology of an individual's offending by more clearly differentiating its intra-personal, interpersonal, and situational determinants (West, 2000). Given that a clinician's conclusions will ultimately be scrutinized by the legal system, it is incumbent upon them to provide accurate information (Heilbrun, 2001).…”

Acquaintance Rape

“…Although the static/ dynamic distinction has considerable utility, it describes differences in the indicators, not necessarily differences in the constructs being assessed. Even though researchers and forensic practitioners have increasingly emphasized the importance of behavioral assault characteristics (i.e., crime scene) for risk assessment (Beech, Fisher, & Thornton, 2003;West, 2000), few risk assessment instruments utilize crime scene variables as indicators of risk-relevant constructs. Recently, Mann, Hanson, and Thornton (2010) proposed that risk assessments should focus on psychological meaningful risk factors, or the enduring propensities that place individuals at risk for offending behaviors (e.g., sexual recidivism).…”