Psychopathic Traits, Risk and Protective Factors, and Attractiveness in Forensic Psychiatric Patients: Their Role in Review Board Dispositions

Denomme, William James; Curno, Jamie; Forth, Adelle E.

doi:10.1080/24732850.2020.1717904

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More recently, the National Trajectory Project was started as a program of research that studied individuals made NCR in Canada. A series of three large multisite investigations of Canadian RBs (Crocker et al, 2014; Wilson et al, 2015, 2016) found that risk-relevant information was associated with dispositional outcomes in keeping with other recent studies (Denomme et al, 2020; Hilton et al, 2016). In the Canadian context, Crocker et al (2014) found that risk instruments were infrequently used at RB hearings (17%) but that dispositions were still informed by static and dynamic factors measured by the HCR-20.…”

Section: Legislative Backgroundsupporting

confidence: 80%

Static and dynamic predictors of forensic mental health decision-making.

Cheng¹,

Olver²,

Haag³

et al. 2023

Psychological Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Canada, individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) fall under the supervision of a jurisdictional review board (RB) per the Criminal Code. Limited research has examined whether RB decisions balance the needs of public safety with social reintegration as intended by federal legislation. To fill this gap, the present study determined whether forensic decisional outcomes in one provincial RB system accounted for information relevant to violence risk. Study instruments included the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 Version 3, and the Revised Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. A retrospective longitudinal design was employed to examine an NCR cohort (N = 109) that entered the RB system between 2005 and 2010 and their respective RB hearings (N = 327) until 2015. Results indicated that risk-relevant information was supplied to the RB by forensic professionals; however, key criminogenic risk and need factors as defined by the LS/CMI were absent in clinical reports. RB decisions were still strongly predicted by empirically supported risk factors linked to violent recidivism. Higher release likelihoods corresponded to a proportionally greater reliance on dynamic risk factors to enact dispositions. Forensic risk instruments are central aspects of correctional rehabilitation, and the results demonstrated their relevance to forensic tribunals. It is recommended that information from a forensic risk instrument be routinely delivered to RBs to support evidence-based decision-making. Impact StatementReview boards are required by the Canadian Criminal Code to balance public safety needs with the social rehabilitation of supervised forensic patients. Despite being supplied with an incomplete profile of risk and need information by forensic professionals, decision-making outcomes were still predicted by risk factors linked to violent reoffending. Forensic risk instruments provide information relevant to violence risk and can assist with evidence-based decision-making in forensic psychiatric settings.

show abstract

Section: Legislative Backgroundsupporting

confidence: 80%

Static and dynamic predictors of forensic mental health decision-making.

Cheng¹,

Olver²,

Haag³

et al. 2023

Psychological Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, researchers have also proposed that PCL psychopathy is related to negative or iatrogenic treatment outcomes, including for example that “prison treatment and resocialization programs may actually make psychopaths worse than they were before” (Hare, 1996, p. 42). PCL psychopathy is often seen as a chronic and untreatable condition, and high scores are reportedly used to (1) indicate low treatment and rehabilitation amenability (e.g., Olver, 2018; Polaschek & Skeem, 2018), (2) support decisions to transfer youth to adult courts due to their presumed chronic dangerousness (e.g., Forth, Bergstrøm, & Clark, 2016), and (3) inform parole and review board dispositions as a predictor of poor rehabilitation (e.g., Denomme, Curno, & Forth, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) psychopaths dangerous, untreatable, and without conscience? A systematic review of the empirical evidence.

Larsen

Jalava

Griffiths

2020

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, Neumann, & Mokros 2018) scales are among the most widely used forensic assessment tools. Their perceived utility rests partly on their ability to assess stable personality traits indicative of a lack of conscience, which then facilitates behavioral predictions useful in forensic decisions. In this systematic review, we evaluate the empirical evidence behind 3 fundamental justifications for using the PCL scales in forensics, namely, that they are empirically predictive of (1) criminal behavior, (2) treatment outcomes, and (3) a lack of conscience. We found the PCL scales can predict criminal behavior to a statistically significant degree, though with important limitations. We found no evidence of PCL psychopathy being predictive of treatment and rehabilitation outcomes. We found no evidence of PCL psychopathy being predictive of a lack of conscience. These findings disprove widespread beliefs about PCL psychopathy among forensic practitioners and questions the current and future role of the PCL scales in forensic settings.

show abstract

“…In a study of almost 7000 dispositions from hearings held in the Canadian Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, review boards cited empirically supported risk assessment factors from the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management -20 (Webster et al, 1997) in their documented reasons for dispositions, such as previous violence, substance use, and personality disorder risk assessment tool (Crocker et al, 2014;Wilson et al, 2015). Further, Denomme et al (2020) found that mention of items from a measure of psychopathy increased the odds of an individual being detained in forensic hospital. Hilton et al (2016) reviewed studies conducted in Ontario of the association between review board decisions and scores on another risk assessment tool, the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Harris et al, 2015), that revealed an increasing influence of risk information on review board decisions over a period of 20 years.…”

Section: The Influence Of Risk and Clinical Factors On Forensic Dispo...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, Denomme et al. (2020) found that mention of items from a measure of psychopathy increased the odds of an individual being detained in forensic hospital. Hilton et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of changes in clinical factors on high‐security forensic custody dispositions

Hilton

Ham

Kim

2022

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The demand for forensic psychiatric beds is increasing, while many individuals are "stuck" in the system. Index offense severity and other legal considerations are associated with longer forensic stays but factors amenable to change such as symptoms of mental illness and aggression may also influence forensic decisions. We examined forensic review board decisions over time among 89 men admitted to a high-security forensic hospital. Almost half received a disposition to remain at their first hearing. Overall, dispositions were not associated with violence risk. The odds of a disposition to remain were higher for men with more in-hospital assaults and higher scores on a measure of clinical factors. Dispositions changed over time and this change was sensitive to clinical factors. We conclude that decisions were consistent with a cascading system of loosening security over time. Further longitudinal research following large samples through the forensic system is recommended.

show abstract

Psychopathic Traits, Risk and Protective Factors, and Attractiveness in Forensic Psychiatric Patients: Their Role in Review Board Dispositions

Cited by 8 publications

References 62 publications

Static and dynamic predictors of forensic mental health decision-making.

Static and dynamic predictors of forensic mental health decision-making.

Are Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) psychopaths dangerous, untreatable, and without conscience? A systematic review of the empirical evidence.

The influence of changes in clinical factors on high‐security forensic custody dispositions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About