Should Actuarial Risk Assessments be Used with Sex Offenders who are Intellectually Disabled
Should Actuarial Risk Assessments be Used with Sex Offenders who are Intellectually Disabled
复制标题
精算风险评估是否适用于智力障碍的性犯罪者
DOI：
10.1111/j.1468-3148.2004.00211.x
复制
发表时间：
2004
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
S. Tough
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Harris;S. Tough
背景客观精算评估对于作出风险决策、确定必要的监督水平和治疗强度至关重要(Andrews&Bonta 2003)。本文回顾了组织风险评估的历史，讨论了当前对智障性犯罪者态度的一些问题。方法我们介绍了两种对这一人群具有实用价值的风险评估工具(RRASR和STRISE-2000)。数据来自81名智力残疾的性犯罪者的社区样本，这表明RRASR可能为这一人群提供一个有用的风险衡量标准。使用STRATE-2000对动态风险进行评估。这一工具基于16个与性累犯相关的经验领域，对个人的当前行为、fi技能、城市和人格因素进行了抽样。这些因素的变化使监督者适应不断变化的风险水平。结论在解决我们是否应该寻求针对智障人士的特殊风险措施的问题时，考虑到目前缺乏替代工具，我们得出的结论是，合理地利用已对普通性犯罪者人口有效的风险评估。关键词：发育、智力残疾、风险、性(性)犯罪者在flfl上对智障人士的待遇与对待“正常”犯罪者的方式不同(Hingsburger等人)。按下)。对再犯罪风险的评估是最明显和最有争议的区别之一。对非智障罪犯进行常规评估的精算风险评估工具范围更广(见附录)。根据罪犯过去的可衡量因素，这些风险评估工具现在已经达到了理所当然应该使用的精算水平(Barbaree等人)。2001年；SJO？stedt&La˚ngstro？m 2001；Doren 2002)。这些工具的常规使用使我们能够确定每个犯罪者存在的风险水平，并相应地应用治疗和监督资源(Andrews&Bonta 2003)。但是这些工具适合用于智力残疾的性犯罪者吗？这些工具的应用应该只有在对这一人群有合理的预期的情况下才会发生。fi。一些评论家担心精算手段的使用只会增加这一群体的污名，这是可以理解的。另一方面，我们必须考虑智障性犯罪者的生活和自由是否受到不公正的限制，因为一些从业人员要求采取正式的风险评估。
Background Objective actuarial assessments are criticalfor making risk decisions, determining the necessarylevel of supervision and intensity of treatment (Andrews& Bonta 2003). This paper reviews the history of orga-nized risk assessment and discusses some issues in cur-rent attitudes towards sexual offenders with intellectualdisabilities.Method We present two risk assessment tools (RRASORand STABLE-2000) that appear to have practical utilitywith this population. Data are presented from a commu-nity sample of 81 sexual offenders who are intellectuallydisabled suggesting that the RRASOR may provide auseful metric of risk for this population. Dynamic risk isassessed using the STABLE-2000. This tool, based on 16areas empirically associated with sexual recidivism,samples the individuals’ current behaviour, skill deficitsand personality factors. Change in these factors servesto flag the supervisor to changing risk levels.Conclusions In addressing the question of whether weshould seek special risk measures normed on peoplewith intellectually disabilities, given the current lack ofalternative tools, we conclude that it is reasonable tomake use of the risk assessments that have been valid-ated on the general sex offender population.Keywords: developmental, intellectual disability, risk,sex(ual) offendersThe treatment of people with intellectual disabilities inconflict with the law is different from the way in which‘normal’ offenders are treated (Hingsburger et al. inpress). Assessment of risk to reoffend is one of the mostobvious and controversial differences. Non-intellectuallydisabled offenders are routinely assessed with a widerange of actuarial risk assessment tools (see Appendix).Based upon measurable factors in the offender’s past,these risk assessment tools have now reached a level ofaccuracy where they should be used as a matter ofcourse (Barbaree et al. 2001; Sjo¨stedt & La˚ngstro¨m 2001;Doren 2002). Routine use of these tools allows us todetermine the level of risk each offender presents andapply treatment and supervision resources accordingly(Andrews & Bonta 2003).But are these tools appropriate for use with sex offen-ders who are intellectually disabled? The application ofthese tools should occur only if there is reasonable expec-tation of benefit to this population. Some commentatorshave understandable fears that the use of actuarial mea-sures will only increase the stigmatization of this popula-tion. On the other hand, we must consider if the livesand liberty of intellectually disabled sexual offenders arebeing unjustly restricted because some practitioners arereluctant to adopt formalized risk assessment.