PSY 622 Violence Risk Assessments

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

622

Subject

Psychology

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

12

Uploaded by DukePowerYak19

Report
1 PSY 622 - A S S E S S M E N T F O R F O R E N S I C P S Y C H O L O G Y Violence Risk Assessments and Personal Injury 8. 2 Milestone VI – Case Scenario 6 Sue Ann Staton June 11, 2023
2 Violence Risk Assessment – Mr. Doug X Mr. Doug X. Male is undergoing this evaluation to determine his criminal risk potential and what treatment he should receive. Mr. X was convicted of aggravated assault on his wife, Susanne, as well as assault and family violence reports against Susanne, despite the fact that she dropped the charges against him. Based on his statement, Mr. X does not intend to reoffend and would prefer to complete his parole rather than adding to the grave statistics. He has shown his commitment to rehabilitation by attending weekly meetings and completing an anger management program. He has also been actively looking for employment opportunities and has been volunteering at a local food bank. He is dedicated to making a positive contribution to society and is committed to staying on the right track. He is committed to living a crime-free life and has already started taking steps in the right direction while in jail. He is taking classes to help him find a job and has been actively seeking counseling to help him deal with his anger and other issues. Mr. X has also taken an anger management course to help him manage his emotions. Evaluation of Psychometrics In trials, the Daubert standard is used by judges to determine whether the expert witness' testimony provides information that is scientifically accurate, reliable, and valid for the facts of the case, and whether the information provided by the expert is applicable. The expert witness' testimony is given under oath, which adds credibility to the information they provide. The court considers this testimony when making their ruling. The expert should also be impartial and unbiased to ensure their testimony's accuracy (Legal Information Institute, 1993). Expert witnesses provide information used in court; this valuable information may have come from evaluations, assessments, past trials, or from knowledge or experience accumulated during the trial itself. They can also offer opinions and conclusions based on the evidence presented in the case. Expert witnesses are a key component of the legal system as they help to inform the judge or jury of facts related to the case.
3 Mr. X was interviewed extensively with a focus on his propensity for violent behavior, and he participated in several assessments that were most suitable in determining the risk of repeating these acts of future violence. The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) Guide is certainly a highly regarded assessment tool when evaluating domestic violence cases. Another necessity is the Inventory of Offender Risks, Needs, and Strengths (IORNS), due to its accuracy in predicting a risk of re-offending. Additionally, the clinicians gave Mr. X the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2nd Edition (MMPI-2), since they could not locate any medical records regarding his psychiatric history. A 20-item checklist called the SARA Guide determines the likelihood that a defendant will abuse his victim again through a process that pinpoints the risk factors that indicate spousal abuse (Kropp & Hart, 2000). It is a useful tool in identifying the potential of domestic violence in suspected abuse cases. It is designed for criminal justice professionals to assess the risk of violence and provide appropriate interventions. Risk factors 1-10 relate to general violence , and risk factors 11-20 relate to spousal violence. This separates the man with several assault charges pending from starting up a bar fight every weekend from the man that appears kind to his neighbors, but he beats his wife severely every weekend. Of course, these two men will require different treatment plans, and it is important to differentiate between various acts of violence. The SARA Guide is based on risk factors determined to be associated with a person's tendency to commit acts of violence. These factors include a person's prior history of violence, their current circumstances, and their access to weapons or other means of committing violence. By evaluating these risk factors, the tool can help professionals identify an individual that is at risk of committing a violent crime , so they can intervene to reduce that risk. In order to determine whether these factors are critical, they are rated on a 3-point scale (0 = absent, 1 = subthreshold, 2 = present) (Kropp & Hart, 2000). Based on a three-point scale, we only consider factors with a ranking of one or two. For example, a factor such
4 as 'outside support' that is rated with a 2 could indicate that those with more outside support were more likely to have a positive outcome, whereas a factor such as 'lack of leisure activities' that was rated with a 0 could suggest that this factor had no effect on the outcome. With a 130-item measure, the IORNS assesses an offender's risk assessment, dynamic needs, and protective strengths through true/false self-reporting. There are six dynamic needs scales, two protective strength scales, and several other detailed subscales to interpret (Static Risk Index (SRI), Dynamic Need Index (DNI), Protective Strength Index (PSI), and overall risk indexes (ORI). Due to the well-connected scales, this assessment is suitable to determine potential of recidivism validity (DeClue, 2007). For example, this assessment can be used to measure the risk of an offender committing a new crime or violating their conditions of probation within a certain time period. The MMPI-2 assessment consists of 567 true-false questions, which are scored based on various scales, such as the 15-item content scale and the 10-item clinical scale (MMPI-2 training slides, 2016). According to Petroskey, Ben-Porath, and Stafford (2003), this assessment is quite popular in the forensic psychology world as it provides interpretive approaches, as well as a solid foundation for making inferences about a patient. The MMPI-2 tested the following: Hypochondriasis (Hs), Depression (D), Hysteria (Hy), Psychopathic Deviate (Pd), Masculinity/Femininity (Mf), Paranoia (Pa), Psychasthenia (Pt), Schizophrenia (Sc), Hypomania (Ma), and Social Introversion (Si). T-scores of 65 to 74 are subclinical but problematic while T-scores of 75 and above are clinically elevated (MMPI-2 training slides, 2016 ). Mr. X had a score of 85 on the Hs item, indicating a clinically elevated result. Additionally, his scores on the D, Hy, and Pd items were also elevated, at 75, 70, and 75, respectively. Conclusively, Mr. X suffers from mental health issues. A T-score of 65 to 74 is associated with increased levels of stress, fatigue, anxiety, and depression, and 75 and above, associated with decreased concentration, lowered
5 self-esteem, and a decrease in overall quality of life (Petroskey et al, 2003). Evaluation of Interview Data Following the completion of the state's mental health assessments and interviews required for Mr. X's parole hearing, the SARA Guide indicated that he had a raw score of 50 and a factor score of 15. Higher scores indicate that domestic violence or spousal abuse may be occurring in the household, as more items in the results indicate higher chances of recidivism (Kropp & Hart, 2000). Therefore, it is critical to take such test results seriously and consider an intervention to prevent potential violence. Action should be taken when there are high scores, such as providing counseling and support services to help resolve the issues. Additionally, it may be beneficial for the abuser to take a batterer intervention program to help them recognize and address their behavior (Crane & Easton, 2017). Based on his IORNS test results, Mr. X scored 28 percent with changeable risk patterns, 38 percent with protective strength index, 77% with overall re-offense risk potential, and 95 percent with favorable impression index. In other words, despite expressing a desire to complete his parole without committing another offense. Mr. X scored a relatively high range for reoffending potential, His changeable risk patterns and protective strength index scores suggest that he will improve, but the final result is questionable. While treatment could help him, his favorable impression index score (95%) suggests he modified his responses so that they would appear more favorable. This is the main drawback of the IORNS; using a self-report method allows for manipulation and inaccuracies. Nevertheless, his scores were respectfully: Hypochondriasis (Hs)=50, Depression (D)=51, Hysteria (Hy)=58, Psychopathic Deviate (Pd)=74, Paranoia (Pa)=79, Psychasthenia (Pt)=55, Schizophrenia (Sc)=66, Hypomania (Ma)=53, and Social Introversion (Si)=66. Results are re presented by a number on a "scale" marking distinct levels of symptoms in comparison to what is considered normal. Elevated scores indicate a risk level for mental disorders, behavioral issues, and certain diseases.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help