Search

Australia's fast-growing migrant population encompasses many groups from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. It is well documented that these groups experience varying pre- and post-migratory challenges. Despite this knowledge, little is known about the extent to which these groups experience and perceive violence and how or whether they seek assistance after such incidents. It is important to identify any potential discrepancies to ensure that services can provide the most targeted supports to victims. Data were collected from the 2016 Australian Bureau of Statistics Public Safety Survey. Using chi-square tests, prevalence, experiences, and perceptions of violence occurring after the age of 15, postincident support, reporting behaviors, and health variables related to violent incidents were compared across three cultural groups arranged by region of birth: born in Australia (BIA), born overseas in main English-speaking countries (BNMESC), and born overseas in non-English-speaking countries (BOC). BOC individuals reported much lower rates of violent victimization compared to BIA and BMSEC individuals. More than two-thirds of each cultural group did not report their most recent experience of violence to police. Violence was most commonly experienced at home, although a higher proportion of BIA individuals experienced violence at an entertainment venue, and a higher proportion of BOC individuals experienced violence outside (i.e., in the street). The contribution of Alcohol/Substances was much higher for BIA and BMESC compared to BOC individuals. BOC individuals experienced more anxiety post-incident, while more BIA individuals sustained physical injuries. A similar proportion of each group sought assistance post-incident, however, more BOC individuals had never told anyone about the incident. Perceptions of the violent incident were generally similar across groups, though fewer BOC individuals perceived the incident to be a crime. Some differences were apparent across cultural groups regarding the prevalence, experiences and reporting of violent incidents. Implications and future research directions are discussed within. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study identified the presence of psychopathy (as measured by the PCL-R/PCL:SV instruments) and antisocial personality disorder (APD) and their relationship with future reconviction in an Australian forensic sample ( N = 136) of patients with a mental disorder. Patients were tracked for over 4 years postrelease to determine associations between a diagnosis of APD/psychopathy and reoffense. Patients with higher psychopathy scores were found to have an increased likelihood of reincarceration, a higher rate of reconviction, and were reconvicted earlier compared with patients with lower psychopathy scores. Patients with APD were more likely to be reconvicted and reincarcerated during the follow-up period than patients without an APD diagnosis. Despite demonstrating associations with general reconviction, the PCL instruments did not exhibit statistically significant relationships with violence. Implications for the clinical identification of personality disordered patients in forensic settings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article outlines the current utility of Indigenous culturally specific risk factors for violence and the ramifications for cross-cultural risk prediction. The Indigenous culturally specific violence risk factor literature has provided a rich body of contextual information outlining Indigenous patterns of criminal behaviour. This information has the capacity to facilitate offender responsivity and treatment targets in addition to assisting clinicians identify the presence of risk markers among Indigenous clients. However, if intended for inclusion in risk prediction models, culturally specific risk items then require further quantitative analysis to establish robust associations and probability estimates for recidivistic outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Violence risk assessment assumes a critical medico-legal role addressing offender/patient needs and informing forensic mental health decision making. Yet questions remain over the cross-cultural applicability of such measures. In their current form, violence risk instruments may not reflect the unique life and cultural experiences of Indigenous Australians rendering them culturally unsafe.Conclusions: To realize equitable forensic assessment, it is necessary to ascertain whether there are cultural differences across risk factors for violence and that risk instruments are validated as culturally appropriate. Greater cross-cultural rigour in forensic mental health risk assessment, research and practice is proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]