Contemplations and discussions on the quality of forensic assessment in sentencing: Puzzling pieces for decision makers

In essence, forensic assessment is labour of a diagnostic nature. This chapter discusses the origins of forensic assessment, types, and measures of quality and possible biases that come with the legal context. It focuses on the most common psycholegal concepts relevant for the quality of forensic assessment in sentencing will be described respectively: mental disorder, criminal responsibility, and dangerousness. Risk assessment is often informed by the Risk-Needs-Responsivity model. Structured guidelines for risk assessment exist in various forms. Roughly two main categories of tools can be divided: actuarial measures and those following a structured professional judgement (SPJ) approach. Both kinds of tools include a list of factors that have empirically been shown to be related to an increased likelihood of future offending. Generally, personalised interventions and risk-management as offered in a forensic treatment setting are much more effective in terms of recidivism reduction than harsh punishments and lengthy prison sentences.