Essay - What is risk assessment and should it be used in the Criminal Justice System? PDF

Preview

Summary

What is risk assessment and should it be used in the Criminal Justice System?...

Description

Risk assessments are used in the criminal justice system to provide predications of an offenders likelihood of being a risk to themselves or others. Evaluation of research evidence suggest that risk assessments are beneficial to the criminal justice systems as they assist in determining an offender’s societal risk level. However, there are limitations of risk assessments which implicate their effectiveness. This essay will focus on two main types of risk assessment methods which include the clinical and actuarial approach and will aim to define what risk assessment, evaluate their effectiveness by considering their accuracy, pro’s and con’s, and explore where it is used in the criminal justice system. Additionally, knowledge and understanding of risk assessments, what they entail, their effectiveness, and accuracy will assist in determining whether they should be used in the criminal justice system as a tool to gauge the level of risk of an offender by measuring their behaviours.

Risk assessment in the criminal justice system is a process that is conducted by psychologist to identify the level of risk of an offender and whether they are likely to reoffend after their release or in the future (Howitt, 2015). Over the years the professional assessment tool has increasingly predicated the behaviours of offenders. Understanding human behaviour is complex making it hard to predict, thus risk assessments were introduced as a tool to attempt to make accurate predictions of an offender’s behaviours. Risk assessments aim to predict human behaviour and determine whether they are a danger to themselves or others in society by considering what factors contribute to or influence an offender and their behaviour. Risk assessments in the criminal justice has been utilised in different areas which include; sentencing, releasing decisions, monitoring and rehabilitation (Fazel & Singh & Doll & Grann, 2012). In the United Kingdom the use of risk assessment has assisted in criminal sentencing and is also used in the United States as part of their criminal justice system (Fazel et al., 2012). In the United States a survey was conducted in 2004 regarding the use of the assessment where parole was in question. Twenty-three out of the thirty - two cases the risk assessment played a role in the decision. There are two main broad types of risk assessment used to predict and offender’s behaviour known as actuarial and clinical methods (Fazel et al., 2012).

There are several approaches used when assessing the risk of an offender. The ways in which behaviour can be evaluated is by the approaches of actuarial and/or clinical methods. The actuarial approach uses empirical based predication methods which include the process of

using statistical algorithms to determine the categories and subcategories to which an offender’s risk level may be (Kim & Joo & Mccarty, 2008). The algorithm demonstrates the connection between the variables of the predictors in reoffending of numerous offenders. The characteristics involved in the predictor variables include the age, criminal history and personality of the offenders (Howitt, 2015). The variable of reoffending includes the evaluation of reconviction for the offence or similar, in a five-year period. Furthermore, the actuarial approach relies on assumption that an offender’s behaviours will be similar to others who have previously committed the same or similar crime. The clinical approach encompasses differing methods to that of the actuarial approach to assess offenders’ behaviours and their risk to themselves and others.

The clinical risk assessment approach relies on the knowledge and expertise of an expert to make a prediction of an offender’s risk level. In contrast to actuarial risk assessment, the clinical method is an unstructured approach as it does not consider contributing factors of an offender prior to their evaluation (Hanson & Motorn-Bourgon, 2009). The clinical approach focuses on the individual and includes the consideration and evaluation of an offender’s behaviours, personality and mental illnesses information regarding their behaviours, personality and mental illnesses. The clinical approach considers the aspects of an individual as highly valuable in predicting their future behaviours and whether they are likely to be at risk to themselves or others (Kim & Joo & Mccarty, 2008). The clinical approach is assessed by experts such as psychiatrics and psychologist who observe the offender, gather and interpret relevant data pertaining to the offender, this assisting in analysing the offenders risk level. Models are used in the clinical approach that experts’ favour when assessing the offender (Howitt, 2015). Howitt (2015) explains the different models used in the clinical assessments include the linear model, hypothetico-deductive model and risk assessment model. The linear model is considered to be the simplest model used by psychologist and psychiatrist to assess offenders’ behaviours (Howitt, 2015). The model is based on a flow diagram that represents a number of decision choices of an offender. The diagram is used as a guide for the expert which assist them in gaging whether an individual demonstrates dangerous behaviours. Based on the responses from the offender, experts will then carry out the most appropriate actions in accordance with the flow diagram (Howitt, 2015). The hypothetico-deductive model requires clinicians to create a hypothesis about the offender’s potential future behaviours by examining their previous behaviours (Howitt, 2015). This

model relies on the expertise and experience of the clinician to determine what cues caused certain behaviours in the past (Howitt, 2015). A clinician’s experience with other clients and the contributing factors which have previously arisen help provide a hypothesis of the actions that need to be implemented to prevent certain behaviours. Finally, the risk assessment model evaluates the complexity of violence. The approach does not just evaluate the individual’s characteristics, but also the contexts and social environments an individual interacts with (Howitt, 2015). From this model the clinician would need to be informed of the surroundings the offender will be involved in as it can predict the likelihood of reoffending (Howitt, 2015). As the clinical approach relies on the expert and their experience, the accuracy of risk assessments in determining an offender’s level of risk is questionable.

It is important to consider the positives and negatives of risk assessments in order to determine their accuracy. When considering accuracy, we refer to the efficiency and effectiveness of risk assessments in determining an offender’s level of risk to society. Depending on which method is being used, effects the accuracy of the risk assessment. The clinical approach is seen to be an all-round approach as it is predominantly based on exploring the individual. As the approach being relies on the details of an individual such as their biology, psychological, and social characteristics, it is considered as an advantage in exploring and offenders’ behaviours and evaluating their risk level. However, in contrast to the method the reliably of the judgements made by experts have been highly criticised as no research has proved that the approach is a reliable and effective tool (Pedersen & Rasmussen & Elsass, 2010). Research has found cases where the clinical approach was used had failed to predict the dangers of the offender, which could have been prevented from readily found predictions (Howitt, 2015). The accuracy of this method is deemed to be unreliable from research stating that there is no evidence to prove why it is a reliable and effective method to put into practice in the criminal justice system. Empirical based risk factors in predicting an offender’s behaviours accuracy is far more reliable than a clinical approach. Compared to the clinical risk assessment approach, the actuarial approach focuses on the facts of risk factors that have been collected on the recidivism of a crime (Pedersen & Rasmussen & Elsass, 2010). Due to actuarial risk assessments using an algorithm to determine the offender’s risk, it has been stated to have a moderate to high level of prediction reliability (Pedersen & Rasmussen & Elsass, 2010). The actuarial method is based on statistical factors, thus removing the

possibility of subjectivism or bias judgement to be by experts against the offender. The limiting of opportunities for bias further empathises and support the effectiveness of the actuarial method, making it statistically the more reliable and valuable method to be used when evaluating and offenders risk level. Due to the actuarial method being based on previous cases and frequency of a crime, statistics will inherently be a lot easier to predict if the crime occurs a lot. If the crime is uncommon the possibility of predictably is not as reliable compared to more common events/crime occurrences (Howitt, 2015). Further supporting the efficiency of the actuarial method, studies claim risk assessments should shift to using the actuarial method as it relies on statistical data and facts rather than an expert’s experience and personal opinion, as seen in the clinical method. Kim & Joo & Mccart (2008) state that actuarial and clinical risk assessment methods are evolving to improve their ability and accuracy in predicting a risk levels as they are now including the collaboration of statistic and dynamic factors. The structured professional judgement brings the two approaches and improves the efficiency of risk assessments. The combination of both the methods in structured professional judgement in risk assessments improve the accuracy and effectiveness of determining offenders risk levels (Pedersen & Rasmussen & Elsass, 2010). The method focuses on the science but also the guidelines of the clinical approach to come to a decision on the level of risk the offender has in reoffending or to return in the community (Pedersen & Rasmussen & Elsass, 2010). How the approach differs to the actuarial method is that the final judgement is made by a professional after considering all the risk factors that have been present (Pedersen & Rasmussen & Elsass, 2010). Combining the two practices to create a structed professional judgement has proven in a series of studies that the method has dramatically been more reliable than clinical and actuarial final judgements (Pedersen & Rasmussen & Elsass, 2010).

The use of risk assessments in the criminal justice system play a vital role in the decisions made regarding an offender. The conclusions drawn from risk assessments determine whether an offender require treatment or supervision in the community or whilst incarcerated. The clinical judgment and actuarial approach both have important roles to play as the advantages and pros from both methods can accurately predict risk levels. Additionally, it is also important to be aware of the negative components of risk assessment tools which may impact on their efficiency and accuracy. Moving forward from the traditional risk assessment method, combining the methods with the structured clinical judgment and results have proven to be far more accurate than the clinical and actuarial approach. When the two have been

combined the evaluation becomes far more effective and stronger in predicting of reoffending. With the continuous improvement of the approaches of the risk assessment tool in the criminal justice system further aids with predicting offenders future risk behaviours. Human behaviours are very difficult to predict, especially dangerous anti-social behaviours, which is why risk assessment tools in the criminal justice system are considered to be valuable.

Reference

Howitt, D. (2015). Introduction to Forensic and Criminal Psychology. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

Pedersen, L., & Rasmussen, K., & Elsass, P. (2010). Risk Assessment: The Value of Structured Professional Judgments. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9 (2), 74-81. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2010.499556

Kim, D. Y., & Joo, H.J., & Mccarty, W. P. (2008) Risk assessment and classification of day reporting centre clients. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 35(6), 792-812. doi 10.1177/0093854808315067

Falzer P. R. (2013). Valuing structured professional judgment: predictive validity, decisionmaking, and the clinical-actuarial conflict. Behavioral Sciences And The Law, 31, 4054. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2043

Frazel, S., & Singh, J.P., & Doll, H., & Grann, M. (2012) Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24827 people: systematic review and meta-analysis. The British Medical Journal, 1-12. doi: https://doi-org.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/10.1136/bmj.e4692 Hanson, R. K., & Motorn-Bourgon, K.E.(2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 1-21. DOI: 10.1037/a0014421...