Forensic-Psychiatric Risk Evaluations: Perspectives of Forensic Psychiatric Experts and Older Incarcerated Persons From Switzerland

Abstract

Background: Forensic-psychiatric risk assessments of persons in prisons aim to provide treatment for their mental health disorders to prevent risk of recidivism. Based on the outcomes of such evaluations, it is decided, for instance, whether the person can be released or be assigned to further treatment with or without privileges. A negative evaluation would mean that the assessed person must remain in prison or in a forensic institution until his or her mental health has improved to live safely in the community. This paper highlights the process of forensic-psychiatric evaluations and the challenges faced by the two parties directly involved in this process in Switzerland.Methods: Data for this manuscript are gathered using semi-structured one-to-one interviews. The study participants included a purposive sample of 41 older incarcerated persons under measures (i.e., mandated by court order to psychotherapeutic and psychiatric treatment), and 23 expert participants working in Swiss prisons or forensic institutions. We analyzed data using thematic analysis.Results: Study findings within four themes are reported. First we describe the standards and procedures that expert participants use to carry out adequate risk assessments and conditions under which they refuse to perform such assessments. Thereafter, we present expert participants' concerns associated with predictive risk assessments and highlight the need to be cautious in drawing conclusion from them. We then reveal older incarcerated participants' reports on the inconsistencies with the forensic expertise and their belief that these reports tend to be negative toward them. The final theme concerns older participants' experiences of how these evaluations negatively impact their lives and their perspectives of a different future.Conclusion: The study findings about forensic-psychiatric risk assessments point to the need for a clearer communication on how these evaluations take place and how decisions are taken based on them. As incarceration under measures denotes the necessity to continue therapy and reduce dangerousness, it is important that accused person understands his or her real progress, feel that the decisions are objective and justified, and are aware of the progress needed to achieve the goal of eventual release. Such clarity will not only be valuable for those under measures, but also the justice system.

Perceptions of collective and other unjust punishment in Swiss prisons: a qualitative exploration

“…detention designed to prevent further reoffending) and requires the offender to undergo treatment. Persons incarcerated under measures receive regular evaluations to assess if the treatment has had a positive effect and reduced dangerousness, a negative evaluation results in extended incarceration (Wangmo et al , 2021). A person can be incarcerated under Article 59 SCC, which is an in-patient therapeutic measure, where the goal is to treat the underlying mental illness associated with the crime.…”

Dignity, Social Reintegration of Prisoners, and the New Penal Power: European Human Rights, Experiences of Belgian Prisoners, and Professional Practices

“…Devynck’s study however shows that psychological/psychiatric (risk) assessments may bring integration to a halt or at least slow it down significantly. Not surprisingly, incarcerated individuals tend to find these reports unfair and unacceptable (Devynck, 2021; Wangmo et al, 2021). The fact that some offenders are too dangerous to return to society is not questioned.…”

“…If diagnoses are established at entry into the prison system, they should be revisited over time. Misdiagnoses (i.e., false positives or false negatives) cannot be completely avoided, due to, for instance, but certainly not limited to, reliance on the unstructured clinical judgment of the assessor (Garb, 2005), subjectivity inherent to psychiatric/psychological judgments (Garb, 2005; Wangmo et al, 2021), and the use of less reliable and valid assessment tools (Habets et al, 2015; Singh et al, 2011). Assessment errors may also be related to fluctuations in test performance, the examiner’s behavior, and in the examinee’s cooperation.…”

Expert opinions on criminal law cases in Switzerland – an empirical pilot study

“…In Switzerland, there have been frequent appeals for quality control in forensic psychiatric/psychological risk assessments from both psychiatric [14,15] and legal sides [16]. Nonetheless, a structured literature search for a systematic review on the quality of forensic psychiatric reports in criminal law yielded no results for Switzerland, in contrast to results for Germany [17][18][19][20][21][22][23].…”