Risk Assessment of Stalkers

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 590-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Randall Kropp ◽  
Stephen D. Hart ◽  
David R. Lyon

Risk assessment of stalkers is difficult due to the diversity of stalking-related behaviors and the lack of research. The authors discuss three problems. First, stalking is a form of targeted violence, that is, violence directed at specific people known to the perpetrator. Second, stalking may include acts that are implicitly or indirectly threatening. Third, stalking can persist for many years, even decades. In contrast, most research on violence risk assessment ignores the relationship between victim and perpetrator, defines violence solely in terms of physical harm, and tracks perpetrators for limited time periods. The authors conclude that these problems make it impossible to rely on actuarial approaches when assessing risk for stalking at the present time, although it is possible to use structured professional judgment. They discuss some basic principles that can be used to guide stalking risk assessment within the framework of structured professional judgment.

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 617-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Douglas ◽  
P. Randall Kropp

The rationale for this article was to outline and describe an emerging model of prevention-based violence risk assessment and management and to discuss attendant clinical and research implications. This model draws on structured professional judgment rather than on actuarial prediction or unstructured clinical prediction. Its purpose is to prevent violence through the assessment of relevant violence risk factors and the application of risk management and intervention strategies that flow directly from these factors. The authors discuss the nature of the clinical tasks that stem from the model as well as a four-step validation procedure required to evaluate it.


2012 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 1089-1094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan R. Teo ◽  
Sarah R. Holley ◽  
Mark Leary ◽  
Dale E. McNiel

Author(s):  
Ashley A. Pritchard ◽  
Adam J. E. Blanchard ◽  
Kevin S. Douglas

Violence risk assessment is the process of identifying the level of risk for future violence posed by offenders, forensic patients, and civil psychiatric patients. In each such context, whether persons are detained or released into the community is a decision governed by law. The field of violence risk assessment has witnessed tremendous growth over the past several decades. With few exceptions, its use in numerous legal settings has been upheld by courts, and in some cases professionals have positive duties to conduct risk assessments and protect potential victims. After early research findings suggesting very poor performance of clinicians in predicting violence, a great deal of research has focused on improving risk assessment. Several hundred studies have now been conducted on structured approaches to risk assessment (e.g., actuarial prediction, structured professional judgment). Similarly, a great amount of scientific attention has been paid to identifying empirically supported violence risk factors. More recently, scholars have been focusing on identifying so-called dynamic risk factors, or those that are changeable and of most relevance to intervention. Current themes in risk assessment include focusing on how risk assessment can inform risk management and risk reduction and how best to integrate risk assessment technology into actual practice.


2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 493-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milena Abbiati ◽  
Agathe Azzola ◽  
Julie Palix ◽  
Jacques Gasser ◽  
Valerie Moulin

Some actuarial and structured professional judgment (SPJ) risk-assessment instruments have already demonstrated their validity and predictive accuracy in expert criminal forensic evaluations. In contrast, little is known about the effectiveness of instruments identifying protective factors in risk of recidivism prediction. The present study was designed to evaluate the validity and predictive accuracy of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) in 94 violent and sexual violent offenders assessed in a Swiss pretrial criminal forensic context. The SAPROF showed good interrater reliability, and was significantly correlated to predominately dynamic instruments but not to predominately actuarial instruments. However, in terms of predictive accuracy, the SAPROF did not perform as well as expected when compared with other instruments and with previous SAPROF accuracy validation studies. These results have implications for the use of the SAPROF in criminal forensic contexts risk assessment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document