Australia |
focus
points
|
 |
Insert forensic
focus points here
Canada |
focus
points
|
|
"Canada's
DO legislation exemplifies the clinical model in its requirement
of a minimum of two psychiatrists to evaluate the offender's
dangerousness before classifying an individual as a DO (s.755(2)).
Offenders deemed likely to commit further crimes will be
confined indefinitely until they are no longer considered
a risk to society. The move from a clinical model to a community
protection model was rather abrupt in Canada" (Petrunik,
1994).
"Like most
offender "types", violent offenders vary widely
and no single program can be expected to meet all their
needs. Therefore, treatment gain should be assessed in a
variety of ways, offender motivation/readiness for treatment
should be evaluated, and responsivity factors such as psychopathy
should be considered" (Serin & Brown 1996, p. 45).
"Violent
offenders are distinguished by the injuries they cause,
their motivation for violence, the types of events and emotions
that cause them to offend, the culpability they accept,
the characteristics of their risk and need levels, and their
motivation for treatment" (Blackburn, 1994; cited in
Serin & Brown 1996, p. 45).
International |
focus
points
|
|
Insert forensic
focus points here
United Kingdom |
focus
points
|
|
"In essence
risk assessment in mental health practice concerns three
main foci: risk of violence, dangerousness, and risk of
recidivism" (Mason, 1998, p. 405).
"There are
clear differences between risk of violence, dangerousness,
and risk of recidivism, both in semantic terms and in their
application of in clinical mental health practice"
(Mason, 1998, p. 405).
"Although
risk assessment for violence and recidivism is quite straightforward
in the literature, the risks of dangerousness is a minefield
of conceptual differences, and of opinion, both in various
professions, groups and within the discipline of psychiatry,
psychology, criminology and law, this is important as the
degree to which the violence and the or likelihood of recidivism
is perceived to threaten harm to self or others which determine
the professional response and clinical treatment' (Mason,
1998, p. 405).
"The issue
of control is crucial, as a lack of control in relation
to anger can cause problems. Exploding in anger or frustration
can be destructive or lead to other harmful consequences"
(McClelland, 1995, p. 59).
"Anger
and violence are often found in psychiatric settings. Insecurity
and a pervasive sense of threat whether real or imaginary
are common to a whole range of mental disorders" (McClelland,
1995, p. 59).
"It is
clear that anger can be an important trigger in acts of
violence and aggression" (McClelland, 1995, p. 60).
"Anger
can be a motivation factor, it can inspire and spur people
into improving their performance. However, when aggression
occurs inappropriately as a result of anger, a person's
relationship or interaction with others suffers because
of his or her anger, then we can say that the person has
overreacted to the provocation" (McClelland, 1995,
p. 60).
"Anger
should not be examined in isolation. If we attempt to control
a person's anger, possibly through training, we must first
examine the environments in which he or she lives"
(McClelland, 1995, p. 60).
"Multidisciplinary
involvement was found to be vital to the group's progress"
(McClelland, 1995, p. 61).
"The study
by Woods (1996) of nurses working on a low dependency forensic
ward in a special hospital to discover how they made their
assessment of patient dangerousness, revealed that none
were using any formal assessment tool, but that all relied
on factors identified in the research as likely indicators
of risk" (Woods, 1996, p. 20).
"According
to Marra et al, an increased burden has been placed on mental
health providers to protect the public, by identifying dangerous
persons and taking the proper professional action"
(Woods, 1996, p. 20).
"Dangerousness
can be defined as the potential to cause serious physical
and psychological harm to others" (Freeman, 1982; cited
in Woods, 1996, p. 20).
"Common
definitions also include fear-inducing, impulsive and destructive
behaviours" (Henworth, 1982; Gunn, 1982; cited in Woods,
1996, p. 20).
"Forensic
psychiatric environments and special hospitals in particular,
care for those patients most likely to manifest violent
behaviour" (Woods, 1996, p. 20).
"Assessment
of patient dangerousness is extremely important in this
context and that the nurses in these wards would be the
most likely to be making formal and routine assessments
of risk of violence, as part of the nursing process"
(Woods, 1996, p. 20).
"Assessment
of risk of violence or self-harm has an important role in
the decisions about the discharge arrangements for people
with high risk mental illness" (Woods, 1996, p. 22).
"There
is a clear need for a formal researched-based instrument
for nurses, and protocols to ensure that all assessments
are agreed by all the clinical team and included in the
individual care plan" (Woods, 1996, p. 22).
"Ashworth
Hospital has now introduced the Care Programme Approach,
and the writer is currently undertaking the validation of
a behavioural assessment instrument for use with in forensic
psychiatry to assess risk of violence and patients insight
and communication skills" (Woods, 1996, p. 22).
"There is
a increasing recognition that the epistemological basis
of the dangerous, mentally abnormal offender pivots on techniques
of psychiatric surveillance. These role constructs include
the forensic psychiatric nurse as an agent of social control,
with historical antecedents which both contribute to an
understanding of contemporary practices and offer clear
signposts for future developments" (Mason & Mercer,
1996, p. 154).
United States |
focus
points
|
|
"The Violent
Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) law
requires violent offenders to serve at least 85% of their
prison sentence before being eligible for release. In addition,
amendments to the laws offer grant incentives for the states
to reinforce the laws. Consequently, prisoners are spending
more time behind bars and release rates have dropped (37
per 100 state prisoners in 1990 to 31 per 100 in 1996) while
the prison population nationwide continues to grow"
(Ditten & Wilson, 1999; cited in Goldkuhle, 1999, p.
40).
"Dangerous
Offender Legislation in the US: The United States' scheme
for criminal law is split between federal and state legislation.
DO provisions are found in state law and thus vary. Typically,
American DO legislation surfaced in response to a few widely
publicized cases of sexual assault. As a result, most of
the DO legislation in the United States focuses on dangerous
sexual offenders. These laws were enacted in the clinical
framework and make some fallacious assumptions" (Petrunik,
1994).
Focus Points
Reference
Goldkuhle, U.
(1999). Professional education for correctional nurses:
A community based partnership model. Journal of Psychosocial
Nursing, 37 (9), 38-44.
Mason, T. (1998).
Models of risk assessment in mental health practice: A critical
examination. Mental Health Care, 11 (121), 405-407.
McClelland,
N. (1995). Looking back at anger. Nursing Times, 91(6),
59-61.
Petrunik, (1994).
Serin, R. &
Brown, S. (1996). Strategies for enhancinng the treatment
of violent offenders. (1996). FORUM on corrections research
(CSC), 8 (3), 45-48.
Top
of Page
Topic
B - Forensic Psychiatry > Section B.6.0. Forensic Concepts >
Unit.B.6.1. Assault/Violence (anger/aggression) Risk Assessment
Norway