[Answer] A Critical Comparison of Approaches Used in Assessing Violent and Sexual Offenders [Full Essay Answer]

[Order Customised Solution Starting from just USD 11 per page. Contact Our Support on Whatsapp Now!]Approaches Used in Assessing

A Critical Comparison of Approaches Used in Assessing Violent and Sexual Offenders

An important aspect of correctional work involves assessing the dangerousness of risky offenders, especially violent and sexual offenders. Offender risk assessment helps correctional institutions in determining how to handle these offenders while they are still in prison and after they are released on parole (Hanson & Thornton 2000). For example, sex offenders deemed to be highly risky may be subjected to restrictions such as indeterminate sentences and post-sentence detention (Latessa & Lovins 2010).

Correctional personnel rely on different instruments to assess offender risk Approaches Used in Assessing. While some approaches emphasise quantitative, objective measurements (actuarial risk assessment instruments), others rely on qualitative professional judgment (clinical risk assessment instruments) (Thornton & D’Orazio 2016).

The predictive accuracy of these instruments in assessing violent and sexual offenders remains a contentious matter, with studies showing that some instruments are more effective than others and that instrument results vary across violent and sex offenses and across different types of sex offenses (Bonta 2002; Craig, Browne & Stringer 2004; Hanson & Thornton 2000). Knowledge of the most effective offender risk assessment instruments can help correctional institutions assess violent and sexual offenders more effectively and thereby achieve the desired correctional outcomes in a more successful fashion. A critical comparison of the various approaches used in assessing violent and sexual offenders constitutes the focus of this essay. First, a brief overview of the evolution of offender risk assessment approaches is provided. Attention is then turned to the predictive accuracy of clinical and actuarial risk assessment instruments.    

Prior to the 1970s, offender risk assessment was largely based on unstructured clinical judgment (Thornton & D’Orazio 2016). In this approach, offender dangerousness was assessed on the basis of the assessor’s familiarity with the offender and prior experience with similar cases (Bengtson & Langstrom 2007). These aspects helped the assessor to reasonably speculate how dangerous a given offender could be. In the 1990s, however, this unstructured approach became the subject of widespread criticism as it lacked objectivity and offered little predictive accuracy Approaches Used in Assessing (Thornton & D’Orazio 2016). This saw the development of evidence-based offender risk assessment approaches.

Compared to unstructured clinical judgment, evidence-based approaches predict recidivism more accurately and provide insights into factors that correctional institutions can focus on to minimise the possibility of reoffending (Thornton & D’Orazio 2016). Since the 1990s, evidence-based approaches have dominated the field of offender risk assessment.

Evidence-based approaches fall in two broad categories: the structured professional judgment (SPJ) approach and the statistical approach. The SPJ approach, also referred to as clinical risk assessment, involves the use of qualitative, non-numerical measures in assessing offender risk (Thornton & D’Orazio 2016). In this approach, the assessor considers various conceptually defined and empirically supported risk factors to make a professional judgment regarding an offender’s dangerousness (Murray & Thomson 2010). Generally, the assessor rates an offender’s dangerousness as low, moderate, or high. Clinical risk assessments can be done for both violent and sexual offenders Approaches Used in Assessing.

Some of the commonly used tools in violent offender assessment include the Historical Clinical Risk Managment-20 (HCR-20) and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) (Thornton & D’Orazio 2016). For sex offenses, the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP), the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence (SAPROF), and the Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20) are some of the commonly used instruments (Thornton & D’Orazio 2016). These instruments consider several aspects, including historical sexual deviation, prior non-sexual violent offenses Approaches Used in Assessing, past non-violent offenses, childhood victimisation, severe mental illness, suicidal ideation, psychopathy, substance abuse, as well as relationship difficulties.   

Whereas the SPJ approach relies on qualitative measures, the statistical approach uses quantitative techniques to assess offender dangerousness. Also known as actuarial risk assessment instruments, statistical approaches involve assessing offender risk based on large scale studies (Thornton & D’Orazio 2016). To measure offender risk, each risk indicator is first assigned a numerical score in accordance with defined rules. The scores for all risk indicators are then summed up or averaged to determine an overall risk score for a given offender Approaches Used in Assessing.

Finally, the overall score is interpreted by comparing it with the results of prevailing large scale recidivism studies. Some of the commonly used actuarial offender risk assessment instruments include the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offense Recidivism (RRASOR), the Structured Anchored Clinical Judgment (SACJ), Static-99 (a combination of the RRASOR and the SACJ), the Risk Matrix 2000-Sexual/Violent (RM2000-S/V), the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool (MnSOST), the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG), and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) (Craig, Browne & Stringer 2004; Hanson & Thornton 2000) Approaches Used in Assessing.

Though statistical risk assessment instruments have different scales, they generally include related items. For example, the original version of the RRASOR has seven items: previous sexual offenses, previous non-sexual offences, age, never married, male victims, stranger victims, and unrelated victims (Hanson & Thornton 2000). On its part, the SACJ measures offender risk in three stages.

In the first stage, five items are considered (current sexual offenses, previous sexual offenses, current non-sexual violent offenses, previous non-sexual violent offenses, and previous sentences); the second stage considers eight items (stranger victims, male victims, sentences relating to non-contact sexual offenses such as exhibitionism, never married, psychopathy, substance abuse, abnormal sexual arousal, and placement in residential care during childhood); and stage three considers information that may be difficult to obtain from sex offenders, such as dropout from treatment programs (Hanson & Thornton 2000) Approaches Used in Assessing. 

The predictive accuracy of SPJ and statistical approaches remains a matter of contention. Whereas both approaches assess offender risk based on structured instruments, Thornton and D’Orazio (2016) decry the little or lack of attention to psychological factors on the part of statistical approaches. Such factors include sexual interests (e.g., hypersexuality and sexual fantasies), personal beliefs that support sexual offending (e.g., misogynistic beliefs and paedophilic inclinations), how an offender relates with others, and self regulation capability Approaches Used in Assessing (Thornton & D’Orazio 2016).

These psychological factors are significantly associated with sexual offending and reoffending and ignoring them in offender risk assessment may not provide a complete picture of the offender’s dangerousness. For this reason, Thornton and D’Orazio (2016) see clinical risk assessments as better in predicting sex offense recidivism than actuarial risk assessments.

Nevertheless, the subjectivity of clinical risk assessments is still a problematic concern. Indeed, it has been argued that “clinical judgement is so much inferior to actuarial methods that any consideration of clinical judgment simply dilutes predictive accuracy” (Hanson & Thornton 2000, p. 132). Actuarial approaches are superior to clinical approaches not only because the former offer a quantitative, objective measurement of offender dangerousness, but also because they focus on factors that are more relevant to corrections (e.g., prison violence, Approaches Used in Assessing escape attempts, suicide, and recidivism) and are more strongly grounded in empirical evidence (Bonta 2002). As a result, actuarial approaches have greater predictive validity than clinical approaches.

Empirical evidence has supported the superiority of actuarial approaches over clinical approaches. For example, Rettenberger et al. (2017) found SORAG to have greater predictive accuracy than the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) in assessing sex offense recidivism. The lower predictive validity of clinical risk assessments compared to actuarial risk assessments in large part explains why the use of the latter is more widespread in practice (Bonta 2002).

Whereas there appears to be considerable scholarly consensus that actuarial risk assessment instruments are superior to clinical risk assessments, there still remains uncertainty over which actuarial tool is the most effective. Several studies have compared different actuarial instruments (Hanson & Thornton 2000; Hilton & Simmons 2001; Rettenberger et al. 2017). For example, Rettenberger et al. Approaches Used in Assessing (2017) found SORAG to have greater predictive validity than VRAG. Hanson and Thornton (2000) compared the predictive accuracy of three actuarial scales in measuring recidivism among sex and violent offenders: the RRASOR, the SACJ, and Static-99. The study, which included a sample of 1,301 offenders drawn from the UK and Canada, arrived at two findings: 1) the RRASOR and the SACJ had roughly the same predictive accuracy; and 2) Static-99 had greater predictive accuracy than either the RRASOR or the SACJ.

Since Static-99 is a combination of the RRASOR and the SACJ, the second finding suggests that correctional institutions can assess recidivism risk among violent and sexual offenders more effectively by relying on two or more instruments at the same time rather than just one. Nevertheless, a longitudinal study that followed up 1,400 released sex offenders in Sweden for a period of 3.69 years on average (Sjostedt & Langstrom 2001) Approaches Used in Assessing contradicts the findings of Hanson and Thornton (2000). The study compared the validity of the RRASOR and Static-99 in predicting sex offense recidivism and found that both instruments had the same moderate predictive accuracy (Sjostedt & Langstrom 2001). This uncertainty warrants greater research to provide clarity over which actuarial instruments have stronger predictive accuracy than others.   

There exists uncertainty not only over the most effective actuarial risk assessment approach, but also over the appropriateness or applicability of different statistical tools in violent and sex offenses and across various types of sex offenses. Using a sample of 139 sex offenders in the UK, Craig, Browne and Stringer (2004) compared several actuarial instruments, including the RRASOR, the SACJ, Static-99, and the RM2000-S/V. The researchers sought to compare scores for sex offenders with child victims and those with adult victims and found that the latter scored substantially higher on the SACJ and the RM2000-S/V compared to the former. Sex offenders with child victims scored substantially higher on the RRASOR. Based on these findings, the researchers concluded that whereas statistical approaches offer greater predictive accuracy and a more objective assessment of sex offense recidivism compared to SPJ approaches, the former have one major shortcoming: the do not consider the broad array of sex offenses – rape, child molestation, exhibitionism, and so forth.

Even for the same actuarial instrument, predictive results can vary across different offenses. This was demonstrated in a longitudinal study of 1,104 released rapists and child molesters in Austria, which sought to examine the predictive validity of the SORAG (Rettenberger et al. 2017). After tracking the subjects for approximately six and a half years, the researchers found that child molesters had higher scores for recidivism risk than rapists. Approaches Used in Assessing Moreover, the study established that predictive validity was slightly higher for violent offense recidivism compared to sex offense recidivism. In a similar vein, Sjostedt and Langstrom’s (2001) study found that though the RRASOR and Static-99 had the same predictive accuracy in assessing recidivism risk among sex offenders, the latter had a considerably higher predictive accuracy in measuring the risk of recidivism among non-sexual violent offenders.  

Based on the findings of Craig, Browne and Stringer (2004), Rettenberger et al. (2017), and Sjostedt and Langstrom (2001), three inferences can be made. One, the same actuarial tool can yield different results for different sexual offenses. For instance, the RRASOR can have strong predictive accuracy in assessing recidivism risk among rapists, but may not necessarily have the same validity in measuring recidivism risk among child molesters or exhibitionists. Two, different actuarial tools may have different results for the same sexual offense. For instance, the RRASOR may have strong predictive accuracy in measuring recidivism risk among rapists, but the SACJ may not necessarily have the same validity. Approaches Used in Assessing the third inference is that different actuarial risk assessment instruments may produce different results for sex and violent cases. For example, the RRASOR may have strong predictive accuracy in measuring recidivism risk among rapists but may not necessarily have the same validity in measuring recidivism risk among non-sexual violent offenders. Therefore, rather than using a generic approach, it may be more prudent for each type of sexual offense or non-sexual violent offense to have its own specific instrument.

Overall, there is considerable scholarly consensus that actuarial approaches offer greater predictive accuracy than clinical risk assessments in assessing violent and sexual offenders. This is particularly because actuarial approaches are based on quantitative, objective measurements, not subjective measurements as in the case of clinical risk assessments. Accordingly, Approaches Used in Assessing correctional institutions should rely more on actuarial approaches when it comes to offender risk assessment. Even so, discretion should be exercised as different statistical risk assessment instruments yield different results across violent and sex offenders and across different types of sex offenses Approaches Used in Assessing .           

References

Bengtson, S & Langstrom, N 2007, ‘Unguided and actuarial assessment of re-offending risk: a direct comparison with sex offenders in Denmark’, Sexual Abuse, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 135-153.

Bonta, J 2002, ‘Offender risk assessment: guidelines for selection and use’, Criminal Justice and Behaviour, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 355-379. 

Craig, L, Browne, K & Stringer, I 2004, ‘Comparing sex offender risk assessment measures on a UK sample’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 7-27.

Hanson, R & Thornton, D 2000, ‘Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: a comparison of three actuarial scales’, Law and Human Behaviour, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 119-136.

Hilton, N & Simmons, J 2001, ‘The influence of actuarial risk assessment in clinical judgements and tribunal Approaches Used in Assessing decisions about mentally disordered offenders in maximum security’, Law and Human Behaviour, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 393-408.

Latessa, E & Lovins, B 2010, ‘The role of offender risk assessment: a policy maker guide’, Victims & Offenders, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 203-219.

Murray, J & Thomson, M 2010, ‘Clinical judgment in violence risk assessment’, Europe’s Journal of Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 128-149.

Rettenberger, M, Rice, M, Harris, G & Eher, R 2017, ‘Actuarial risk assessment of sexual offenders: the psychometric properties of the Sex Offender Appraisal Guide (SORAG)’, Psychological Assessment, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 624-638.

Sjostedt, G & Langstrom, N 2001, ‘Actuarial assessment of sex offender recidivism risk: a cross-validation of the RRASOR and the Static-99 in Sweden’, Law and Human Behaviour, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 629-645. Thornton, D & D’Orazio, D 2016, ‘Advancing the evolution of sexual offender risk assessment’, in D. P. Boer (ed.), The Wiley handbook on the theories, assessment, and treatment of sexual offending, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, pp. 667-693 Approaches Used in Assessing .

Go Home