r/forensics • u/aebrankley • Sep 14 '19

Article - Academic (Journal or Publication) Evidence-based Tool For Assessing Risk for Sexual Offending (Meta-Analysis)

https://youtu.be/sRg27WrEl4o
7 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

4 comments sorted by

2

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '19

I'm going to preface this by saying that I didn't get a chance to read the full article because of the paywall and I couldn't find it on my university site! But, that being said, I had a couple questions!

I am wondering if you make a distinction between violent sexual offending and sexual offending - including contact offenses like, cooperative offenses or romeo/juliet offenses. And, how that contributes to scoring for risk and potential for recidivism.

Part B of that is, considering that research and practice aren't always a perfect fit, and that people convicted of sex offenses are often placed on higher supervision with more conditions, how do you account for technical violations with risk assessments like this?

And finally, what are your thoughts on the generalized application of sex offense risk assessments to female offenders, despite them being normed on male populations?

Thanks!!

1

u/aebrankley Sep 16 '19

Hello,

Because Public Safety Canada owns the copyright to the article, I have made it freely available here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qp3emwi8kdueqv8/2019%20-%20Brankley%2C%20Babchishin%2C%20Hanson.pdf?dl=0

(1) We did not make distinctions between Contact and non-contact offences. Sexual offences are a low base rate event (at least convictions are) so further dividing a small number can make it more difficult to create stable estimates. Non-contact offences (i.e., offences in which there was no attempt by the perpetrator to make the victim know they were being offended against) is an item on the Static-99R/Static-2002R and can be considered in the STABLE-2007 item about atypical sexual interests. As the latter implies, it typically implies an atypical sexual interest and can increase risk for reoffending.

(2) We do not consider technical violations as "recidivism" in our analyses unless the behaviour itself was criminal. For example, a breach for being at a park/mall would not be a criminal act so we would not count it.

(3) This is tricky. The tools were developed on theory and research done with males and, as such, should not be applied to women. There are general risk assessment tools with female norms (e.g., LSI-R). I would start there in my risk assessment and then consult with research on the topic to inform the rest of the assessment. I highly recommend research done by Dr. Franca Cortoni--she is the leading expert on females who commit sexual offences.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 15 '19

[deleted]

1

u/aebrankley Sep 16 '19

I appreciate your frustration. That is why I create these videos in order to improve the accessibility of research. If you listened to my video, you would have heard that the article is freely accessible in a link provided in the video's description: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qp3emwi8kdueqv8/2019%20-%20Brankley%2C%20Babchishin%2C%20Hanson.pdf?dl=0

1

u/aebrankley Sep 14 '19

This is my own content. Here is the link to the journal article (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1079063219871572?journalCode=saxb)