Covert and Implicit Influences on the Interpretation of Violence Risk Instruments
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 undoubte...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Psychiatry, psychology, and law psychology, and law, 2017-01, Vol.24 (2), p.292-301 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 301 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 292 |
| container_title | Psychiatry, psychology, and law |
| container_volume | 24 |
| creator | Shepherd, Stephane M. Sullivan, Danny |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/13218719.2016.1197817 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2346297397</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><informt_id>10.3316/agis_archive.20172114</informt_id><sourcerecordid>2346297397</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c574t-62762c7466da2cc2eae3ee66ea9c4bc84451c1ac06fcc4399ede8fb13d2121733</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kV2LEzEUhoMo7lr9CcqAN960zklm8nEjLsWPwoIo6m1IM2e2qZlJTTKV_fdmaHdRL4RAQs7zvicnLyHPoV5BLevXwChIAWpFa-ArACUkiAfkEhRrlsCleFjOhVnO0AV5ktK-rkGBrB-TCwZKMtW2l-TzOhwx5sqMXbUZDt5Zl6vN2PsJR4upCmOVd1huMsZDxGyyK1ehr7674Gek-uLSj1JPOU4Djjk9JY964xM-O-8L8u39u6_rj8vrTx8266vrpW1Fk5ecCk6taDjvDLWWokGGyDkaZZutlU3TggVja95b2zClsEPZb4F1FCgIxhbkzcn3MG0H7GzpHY3Xh-gGE291ME7_XRndTt-Eo-YSJOW8GLw6G8Twc8KU9eCSRe_NiGFKmrKGUyVYWQvy8h90H6Y4lvE0SAXA2vKdhWpPlI0hpYj9_WOg1nNo-i40PYemz6EV3Ys_J7lX3aVUAHUC4uCytsF7tHMOaW9yms0ZK3bmxiVtot25I84NBAVoivbtSevGPsTB_ArRdzqbWx9iH81oi4j9_32_AV2Quzg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1891135839</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Covert and Implicit Influences on the Interpretation of Violence Risk Instruments</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Shepherd, Stephane M. ; Sullivan, Danny</creator><creatorcontrib>Shepherd, Stephane M. ; Sullivan, Danny</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1321-8719</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1934-1687</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2016.1197817</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31983955</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Routledge</publisher><subject>Courts ; Covert ; Criminal sentences ; expert testimony ; forensic assessment ; Forensic psychiatry ; Mental health professionals ; Miscommunication ; Misconceptions ; Offenders ; Rigour ; Risk assessment ; Scrutiny ; Tribunals & commissions ; Violence ; violence risk assessment ; violence risk instruments</subject><ispartof>Psychiatry, psychology, and law, 2017-01, Vol.24 (2), p.292-301</ispartof><rights>2016 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 2016</rights><rights>2016 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.</rights><rights>2016 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law</rights><rights>2016 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 2016 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c574t-62762c7466da2cc2eae3ee66ea9c4bc84451c1ac06fcc4399ede8fb13d2121733</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c574t-62762c7466da2cc2eae3ee66ea9c4bc84451c1ac06fcc4399ede8fb13d2121733</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6818266/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6818266/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,30976,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31983955$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shepherd, Stephane M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, Danny</creatorcontrib><title>Covert and Implicit Influences on the Interpretation of Violence Risk Instruments</title><title>Psychiatry, psychology, and law</title><addtitle>Psychiatr Psychol Law</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Covert</subject><subject>Criminal sentences</subject><subject>expert testimony</subject><subject>forensic assessment</subject><subject>Forensic psychiatry</subject><subject>Mental health professionals</subject><subject>Miscommunication</subject><subject>Misconceptions</subject><subject>Offenders</subject><subject>Rigour</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Scrutiny</subject><subject>Tribunals & commissions</subject><subject>Violence</subject><subject>violence risk assessment</subject><subject>violence risk instruments</subject><issn>1321-8719</issn><issn>1934-1687</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kV2LEzEUhoMo7lr9CcqAN960zklm8nEjLsWPwoIo6m1IM2e2qZlJTTKV_fdmaHdRL4RAQs7zvicnLyHPoV5BLevXwChIAWpFa-ArACUkiAfkEhRrlsCleFjOhVnO0AV5ktK-rkGBrB-TCwZKMtW2l-TzOhwx5sqMXbUZDt5Zl6vN2PsJR4upCmOVd1huMsZDxGyyK1ehr7674Gek-uLSj1JPOU4Djjk9JY964xM-O-8L8u39u6_rj8vrTx8266vrpW1Fk5ecCk6taDjvDLWWokGGyDkaZZutlU3TggVja95b2zClsEPZb4F1FCgIxhbkzcn3MG0H7GzpHY3Xh-gGE291ME7_XRndTt-Eo-YSJOW8GLw6G8Twc8KU9eCSRe_NiGFKmrKGUyVYWQvy8h90H6Y4lvE0SAXA2vKdhWpPlI0hpYj9_WOg1nNo-i40PYemz6EV3Ys_J7lX3aVUAHUC4uCytsF7tHMOaW9yms0ZK3bmxiVtot25I84NBAVoivbtSevGPsTB_ArRdzqbWx9iH81oi4j9_32_AV2Quzg</recordid><startdate>20170101</startdate><enddate>20170101</enddate><creator>Shepherd, Stephane M.</creator><creator>Sullivan, Danny</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Australian Academic Press Group Pty Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170101</creationdate><title>Covert and Implicit Influences on the Interpretation of Violence Risk Instruments</title><author>Shepherd, Stephane M. ; Sullivan, Danny</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c574t-62762c7466da2cc2eae3ee66ea9c4bc84451c1ac06fcc4399ede8fb13d2121733</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Covert</topic><topic>Criminal sentences</topic><topic>expert testimony</topic><topic>forensic assessment</topic><topic>Forensic psychiatry</topic><topic>Mental health professionals</topic><topic>Miscommunication</topic><topic>Misconceptions</topic><topic>Offenders</topic><topic>Rigour</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Scrutiny</topic><topic>Tribunals & commissions</topic><topic>Violence</topic><topic>violence risk assessment</topic><topic>violence risk instruments</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shepherd, Stephane M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, Danny</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Psychiatry, psychology, and law</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shepherd, Stephane M.</au><au>Sullivan, Danny</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Covert and Implicit Influences on the Interpretation of Violence Risk Instruments</atitle><jtitle>Psychiatry, psychology, and law</jtitle><addtitle>Psychiatr Psychol Law</addtitle><date>2017-01-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>292</spage><epage>301</epage><pages>292-301</pages><issn>1321-8719</issn><eissn>1934-1687</eissn><abstract>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><cop>England</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><pmid>31983955</pmid><doi>10.1080/13218719.2016.1197817</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1321-8719 |
| ispartof | Psychiatry, psychology, and law, 2017-01, Vol.24 (2), p.292-301 |
| issn | 1321-8719 1934-1687 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2346297397 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Courts Covert Criminal sentences expert testimony forensic assessment Forensic psychiatry Mental health professionals Miscommunication Misconceptions Offenders Rigour Risk assessment Scrutiny Tribunals & commissions Violence violence risk assessment violence risk instruments |
| title | Covert and Implicit Influences on the Interpretation of Violence Risk Instruments |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T01%3A04%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Covert%20and%20Implicit%20Influences%20on%20the%20Interpretation%20of%20Violence%20Risk%20Instruments&rft.jtitle=Psychiatry,%20psychology,%20and%20law&rft.au=Shepherd,%20Stephane%20M.&rft.date=2017-01-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=292&rft.epage=301&rft.pages=292-301&rft.issn=1321-8719&rft.eissn=1934-1687&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/13218719.2016.1197817&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2346297397%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1891135839&rft_id=info:pmid/31983955&rft_informt_id=10.3316/agis_archive.20172114&rfr_iscdi=true |