Predicting Predatory Behavior in a Population of Incarcerated Young Offenders

Abstract

Predatory relationships are characterized by violence or threats of violence and their prediction and prevention are matters of critical importance within the custodial setting. In an attempt to predict predatory behavior, 251 consecutive admissions to a secure custody Young Offenders Unit in a maximum security detention centre were administered the Young Offender-Level of Service Inventory (YO-LSI). Subjects ranged in age from 16 to 19 years. Twenty-eight of them subsequently displayed aggressive behavior toward other residents and had to be isolated. The YO-LSI distinguished predators from nonpredators and showed satisfactory interobserver reliability and internal consistency. Results suggested that predators have more extensive criminal histories and criminal sentiments, as well as more substance abuse, educational/employment, family, peer, and psychological problems.

Bullying behaviors among male and female prisoners: A study of adult and young offenders

“…Bullies overall were serving the shortest sentences, a finding inconsistent with previous research [Brookes, 1993]. Overall, they also reported the most extensive institutional histories, thus corresponding to previous evidence examining inmate aggressors [Shields and Simourd, 1991]. However, the logistic regression only produced one significant predictor for this group, less overall imprisonment, and this was limited to the male sample.…”

“…Research also suggests that certain inmates are more likely than others to be bullied, and these include younger inmates, those new to the prison system [Beck, 1992;Brookes, 1993;Ireland and Archer, 1996;Power et al, 1997], and inmates serving short sentences [Brookes, 1993]. Although examining inmate aggressors, as opposed to bullies specifically, an American study by Shields and Simourd [1991] reported that aggressors have more extensive institutional and criminal histories than do victims, a finding confirmed in the United Kingdom by O'Donnell and Edgar [1996]. However, although addressing more global issues of victimisation as opposed to bullying per se, O'Donnell and Edgar also reported that the length of time spent within an institution was not a predictor of being victimized and that previous experience of custody did not reduce the probability of being a victim.…”

Working at the Social–Clinical–Community–Criminology Interface: The George Mason University Inmate Study

“…The CBAS is a 25 item self-report measure designed to tap 5 dimensions: (a) Failure to Accept Responsibility ("Bad childhood experiences are partly to blame for my current situation"); (b) Notions of entitlement ("When I want something, I expect people to deliver"); (c) Negative attitudes toward authority ("People in positions of authority generally take advantage of others"); (d) Short-term orientation ("The future is unpredictable and there is no point planning for it"); and (d) Insensitivity to impact of crime ("A theft is all right as long as the victim is not physically injured"). Several dimensions identified by the clinicians appear in previous efforts to conceptualize cognitions associated with criminal activity (Barriga, et al, 2000;Gendreau, Grant, Leipciger, & Collins, 1979;Shields & Simourd, 1991;Walters, 1995;Yochelson & Samenow, 1976). The CBAS, however, is unique in its incorporation of restorative justice theory, most clearly exemplified by the insensitivity to the impact of crime dimension.…”

L’évaluation de la validité prédictive du LS/CMI dans la prédiction des incidents disciplinaires en prison

“…Les travaux sur le LS/CMI indiquent qu'il est aussi performant pour une grande variété de populations, notamment les femmes délinquantes (Coulson et al, 1996 ;Rettinger, 1998 ;Girard, 1999), les délinquants autochtones (Bonta, 1989 ;Andrews et al, 2001), les jeunes délinquants de sexe masculin et féminin (Sparring, 1982 ;Shields et Simourd, 1991 ;Shields, 1993 ;Hoge et al, 1995 ;Andrews et al, 2001 ;Nowicka-Sroga, 2003) et les délinquants aux prises avec des problèmes de santé mentale (Andrews et al, 2001 ;Girard et Wormith, 2004).…”