Advertisement

Cultural Considerations in the Assessment of Sexually Violent Predators

  • Brian D. Leany
  • Lorraine T. Benuto
Chapter

Abstract

The overall prospect of restricting civil liberties for those individuals who have served their sentence for a sexual offense is not without controversy. A number of states developed strategies to find a balance between the protection of the public and the rights of those convicted. However, the bulk of those strategies do little to consider cultural variables that may inaccurately assess the risk of an individual to reoffend for a sexual offense. This chapter discusses the current state of the field in light of the lack of data, including the identification of studies that do evaluate cultural variables, and finally makes recommendations for practitioners in the field.

Keywords

Recidivism Reoffending Cultural considerations Sexually violent predators 

References

  1. Abbott, B. R. (2017). Sexually violent predator risk assessments with the violence risk appraisal guide revised: A shaky practice. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2001). LSI-R: The level of service inventory-revised user’s manual. North Tonawanda, NY: MultiHealth Systems.Google Scholar
  3. Babchishin, K. M., Hanson, R. K., Helmus, L., Långström, N., & Nichol, T. (2011). The RRASOR, static-99R and static-2002R all add incrementally to the prediction of recidivism among sex offenders.Google Scholar
  4. Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2001). Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(4), 490–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, N. M., Leany, B. D., & Benuto, L. T. (2015). Assessing risk and recidivism in African Americans. In Guide to psychological assessment with African Americans (pp. 305–311). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Porath, Y. S., Shondrick, D. D., & Stafford, K. P. (1995). MMPI-2 and race in a forensic diagnostic sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benuto, L., & Leany, B. (Eds.). (2015). Guide to psychological assessment with African Americans. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Benuto, L., Thaler, N., & Leany, B. (2014). Guide to psychological assessment with Asian Americans. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Benuto, L. T., Leany, B. D., & Cirlugea, O. (2013). Forensic assessment with the Hispanic client. In Guide to psychological assessment with Hispanics (pp. 389–411). Boston: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benuto, L. T., Leany, B. D., Thaler, N. S., & Yonesawa, A. (2014). Assessing risk, recidivism, and dangerousness in Asians. In Guide to psychological assessment with Asians (pp. 443–451). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., Caperton, J. D., & Hawes, S. W. (2009). Field validity of the STATIC-99 and MnSOST-R among sex offenders evaluated for civil commitment as sexually violent predators. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(4), 278–314.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson, E. A. (2014). Prisoners in 2013. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf.
  13. Carson, E. A., & Sabol, W. J. (2012). Prisoners in 2011. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  14. Douglas, K. S., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., Belfrage, H., Guy, L. S., & Wilson, C. M. (2014). Historical-clinical-risk management-20, version 3 (HCR-20V3): Development and overview. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(2), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J. D., Huot, S., Hesselton, D., & Alexander, W. (2000). Minnesota sex offender screening tool-revised (MnSOST-R). St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections.Google Scholar
  16. Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2003). Notes on the development of static–2002 (Corrections research user report 2003–01). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.Google Scholar
  20. Helmus, L., Thornton, D., Hanson, R. K., & Babchishin, K. M. (2012). Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: Revised age weights. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 39(9), 1148–1171.Google Scholar
  21. Holoyda, B. J., & Newman, W. J. (2016). Recidivism risk assessment for adult sexual offenders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(2), 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Langton, C. M., Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Peacock, E. J., Harkins, L., & Hansen, K. T. (2007). Actuarial assessment of risk for re-offense among adult sex offenders: Evaluating the predictive accuracy of the Static-2002 and five other instruments. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, S. C., Restrepo, A., Satariano, A., & Hanson, R. K. (2016). The predictive validity of static-99R for sexual offenders in California: 2016 update. Retrieved from: http://saratso.org/pdf/ThePredictiveValidity_of_Static_99R_forSexualOffenders_inCalifornia_2016v1.pdf.
  24. Manchak, S. M., Skeem, J. L., & Douglas, K. S. (2008). Utility of the revised level of service inventory (LSI-R) in predicting recidivism after long-term incarceration. Law and Human Behavior, 32(6), 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Quinsey, V. L (2017). The art of misdirection: Abbott’s shaky take on the VRAG-R. Retrieved from http://www.vrag-r.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Comment-on-Abbott-July-25.pdf
  26. Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., & Lang, C. (2013). Validation of and revision to the VRAG and SORAG: The violence risk appraisal guide—revised (VRAG-R). Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thornton, D., Mann, R., Webster, S., Blud, L., Travers, R., Friendship, C., et al. (2003). Distinguishing and combining risks for sexual and violent recidivism. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seto (Eds.), Sexually coercive behavior: Understanding and management (Vol. 989, pp. 225–235). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  29. Varela, J. G., Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., Caperton, J. D., & Gonzalez, E. J. (2013). Do the static-99 and static-99R perform similarly for White, Black, and Latino sexual offenders? The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 12(4), 231–243.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2013.846950CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian D. Leany
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lorraine T. Benuto
    • 2
  1. 1.Lake’s Crossing Center: Maximum Security Facility for Forensic Mental Health ServicesRenoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations