Jodi Viljoen

Risk and protective factors for recidivism among juveniles who have offended sexually.

Literature on risk factors for recidivism among juveniles who have sexually offended (JSOs) is limited. In addition, there have been no studies published concerning protective factors among this population. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of risk and protective factors to sexual and nonsexual recidivism among a sample of 193 male JSOs (mean age = 15.26). Youths were followed for an average of 7.24 years following discharge from a residential sex offender treatment program. The risk factor opportunities to reoffend, as coded based on the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism, was associated with sexual recidivism. Several risk factors (e.g., prior offending; peer delinquency) were associated with nonsexual recidivism. No protective factors examined were associated with sexual recidivism, although strong attachments and bonds as measured by the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth was negatively related to nonsexual recidivism. These findings indicate that risk factors for nonsexual recidivism may be consistent across both general adolescent offender populations and JSOs, but that there may be distinct protective factors that apply to sexual recidivism among JSOs. Results also indicate important needs for further research on risk factors, protective factors, and risk management strategies for JSOs.

Assessing intent and criminal responsibility.

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses how clinicians who conduct criminal responsibility evaluations should use a framework that is legally informed, ethically, and empirically guided, especially when conducting evaluations concerning mentally insane criminals. The underlying principle establishing the need for an insanity defense is that individuals who commit crime for irrational reasons or because they were unable to control their behavior should not be convicted and punished. Such individuals may be considered in need of treatment in a forensic facility rather than confinement in a prison. Psychotic disorders are widely accepted as a basis for an insanity defense Mental retardation, organic disorders, and affective disorders are relatively common among insanity defense cases, reflecting approximately 5, 7, and 10 percent, respectively. In order to facilitate the validity of an assessment, it is argued that psychologists have an ethical responsibility to always assess for response biases. Many common self-report measures, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), contain scales that measure exaggeration of psychopathology, minimization of psychopathology, and inconsistent responding.