Distinguishing and assessing treatment needs and amenability to rehabilitation.

Kinscherff, Robert

doi:10.1037/14643-018

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other areas to be evaluated include the degree of remorse, the stability and support provided by the family, presence of prosocial role models and the expectation by the youth that treatment would be helpful (Salekin, 2002). The response of the young person to previous treatment or rehabilitation efforts also needs to be considered (Grisso, 2013;Kinscherff, 2016).…”

Section: The Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

A decision-making model for pre-sentence evaluations for juveniles

Bycroft

Dear

Drake

2020

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forensic mental health assessments (FMHAs) are requested by the courts to assist in the sentencing process and can have a major impact upon the life of the person evaluated. Completing these assessments is a core competency for forensic psychologists. However, some FMHAs are undertaken by psychologists who have no forensic training. Despite this, there are no formalised Australian minimum standards to ensure reports are helpful to the courts and reflect sound evaluation methodologies. Drawing upon a critical review of the literature and recent research findings, we propose a 10-step decision-making model for presentence evaluations of juveniles. Our model provides a framework for decision-making and highlights the key elements of an evaluation. The model provides a basis for developing practice guidelines and professional standards. The next step is to test the model in the field to determine its impact on the quality of psychological pre-sentence reports.

show abstract

Section: The Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

A decision-making model for pre-sentence evaluations for juveniles

Bycroft

Dear

Drake

2020

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Addressing the intellectual, academic, and vocational skills of the young person will help to identify how to maximise the likely benefits of the sentence (Heilbrun & Locklair, 2016;Hoge & Andrews, 2010). How the young person has responded to previous treatment efforts should also be considered (Grisso, 2013;Kinscherff, 2016;Melton et al, 2017).…”

Section: Knowledge About the Legal Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological pre‐sentence evaluations for sentencing young offenders in Australia

Bycroft

Dear

Drake

2020

Australian Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Drawing upon extant Australian and International literature we sought to identify the skills and knowledge psychologists require to competently evaluate Australian young offenders for sentencing. We also sought to identify the key ethical and methodological issues that Australian psychologists should be aware of before commencing a forensic evaluation of a young offender. Method Using search terms “expert witness, pre‐sentence report, pre‐sentence report, forensic mental health assessment, Forensic Mental Health Assessment, forensic assessment, methodology, forensic model, and sentencing juveniles” we searched for peer reviewed articles published between the years 2000–2018 on the PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and ProQuest data bases. Results Drawing upon available literature we identified the knowledge and skills required for evaluations and the ethical standards available to help guide the evaluation. Due to the lack of Australian research in this area, we had to rely on international literature regarding recommended evaluation methods. There is no clear statement on what the psychology profession in Australia believes is an appropriate evaluation methodology and what content is required in a pre‐sentence report. There is no specific data clarifying what Australian judicial officers find helpful in pre‐sentence reports. Conclusions Our article highlights the need for further research into Australian evaluation methodology for pre‐sentence reports, and the need for professional standards and guidelines specific to Australian jurisdictions.

show abstract

“…Developmental and clinical examiners in juvenile forensic cases have some well-considered guidelines and strategies for collecting theoretically relevant data to make judgments about degree of “amenability to treatment” (e.g., Grisso, 2013; Kinscherff, 2016). These guidelines may be helpful when bringing together case information derived from a range of sources (e.g., interviews, records, others’ observations).…”

Section: Prospects For Evidence Regarding Miller’s Five Developmental...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospects for developmental evidence in juvenile sentencing based on Miller v. Alabama.

Grisso¹,

Kavanaugh²

2016

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions barred mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide (Miller v. Alabama, 2012) and applied Miller retroactively (Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016). Miller identified several developmental factors to consider in mitigation, but left many questions unanswered about their application. The authors offer several sentencing contexts to frame the types of developmental and clinical evidence that may be relevant for Miller hearings under various circumstances. Within these contexts, they explore types and sources of relevant developmental evidence and raise questions about quality and limitations. Their analysis identifies areas in which appellate court clarification is needed to determine how developmental evidence will be used in Miller cases, and they alert developmental experts to prospects and cautions for providing relevant evidence, as well as areas in need of research.

show abstract

Distinguishing and assessing treatment needs and amenability to rehabilitation.

Cited by 4 publications

References 51 publications

A decision-making model for pre-sentence evaluations for juveniles

A decision-making model for pre-sentence evaluations for juveniles

Psychological pre‐sentence evaluations for sentencing young offenders in Australia

Prospects for developmental evidence in juvenile sentencing based on Miller v. Alabama.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About