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]

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]