Search

The Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) is utilised internationally to assess an individual's risk for violence. Despite being widely administered in Australian correctional and forensic populations, the predictive validity of the HCR-20 instrument has never been explored in Australian settings. This retrospective study investigated the predictive validity of the HCR-20 for an Australian cohort of 136 forensic psychiatric patients. Findings support the relationship between the HCR-20 and violent offending post hospital discharge. The HCR-20 Total, Historical, and Risk Management scales shared moderate to large positive correlations with several reconviction categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forensic mental health practitioners are frequently asked to estimate the risk of future violence. Legal decisions concerning the sentencing, management and disposition of offenders often rely on the advice of such testimony. The burgeoning use of violence risk instruments in these settings undoubtedly injects a level of scientific rigour into forensic evaluations for courts and tribunals. Yet scrutiny of the inherent limitations of both risk instruments and the inferences and formulations drawn from them are often veiled by the discipline's endorsement for such approaches. Misconceptions about the validity and dependability of present-day risk assessments and expert infallibility persist. The furtive influences that shape both the (mis)interpretation and miscommunication of risk instruments in legal settings necessitate discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This study sought to ascertain the prevalence of protective factors and association with client risk level and future offending in a sample of 177 Australian youth in detention. The Protective Domain on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) instrument was utilized to identify protective items in the cohort. The mean number of protective factors for the entire sample was low (under two) with higher risk clients averaging less than one current protective item. Although the number of protective factors engendered criminal desistance, this effect did not extend to the highest risk young offenders. Clients who re-offended were significantly less likely to present with five out of the six SAVRY protective items. In addition, pro-social involvement and school engagement had the strongest associations with non re-offense. Clinical implications for client risk management are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]