Abstract
With interpersonal violence currently a leading cause of death (World Health Organization, 2004), the world’s prison population at more than 10 million (Walmsley, 2013) and the number of inpatient beds in forensic psychiatric hospitals on the rise (Priebe et al., 2008), establishing valid and reliable methods of identifying individuals who are likely to commit criminal acts is an important public health and safety issue. One approach to identifying future offenders is through the use of risk assessment—structured and unstructured methods of predicting the likelihood of antisocial behavior. Although unstructured clinical judgments of dangerousness remain common in practice, numerous structured risk assessment instruments, the manuals of which claim high rates of reliability and predictive validity, have been introduced in recent decades (Bonta, 2002). The investigation of these measures’ psychometric properties has produced a sizable literature (Desmarais & Singh, 2013). However, this literature has largely been circumscribed to North America, Western Europe, and Australasia (Singh, Grann, & Fazel, 2011).
Nevertheless, violence risk assessment is a global phenomenon. A recent international survey focused on the practical application of violence risk assessment methods (Singh et al., 2014) attracted a number of respondents from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Norway, and Eastern Europe. These regions’ risk assessment practices are currently a “black box,” with either little or non-existent literature in English. Hence, researchers, clinicians, and policymakers interested in getting involved in these regions currently do not have available to them overviews of current risk assessment guidelines and policies in these areas.
This special issue of Criminal Justice and Behavior (CJB) begins to open the black box of violence risk assessment in non-Western countries. First, representing Scandinavia, Stål Bjørkly, Pål Hartvig, John Olav Roaldset, and Jay P. Singh discuss both the historical development and current practices of forensic risk assessment in Norway. Interestingly, because the use of actuarial instruments has not been routinely adopted throughout Norway, Bjørkly et al. focus primarily on the widely used method of structured professional judgment. The article closes with an analysis of the controversial expert witness testimony concerning the violence risk assessment of Anders Behring Breivik, who murdered 77 people in 2011.
The second article in the issue comes from Yan Gu, Jay P. Singh, Libing Yun, and Zeqing Hu, who highlight violence risk assessment practices in mainland China with mentally disordered patients. The authors note that risk assessment practices are still very much in their infancy, with the vast majority of practices reflecting unstructured clinical judgment. Indeed, the mentally ill in China were only recently given human rights protections through the National Mental Health Law in May 2013. Thus, Gu et al. conclude that reliable and valid actuarial instruments are “urgently needed” (p. 1404, this issue).
In an effort to broaden the issue’s focus, the third article, written by Tess M.S. Neal and Thomas Grisso, presents an international survey of forensic examiners to determine the frequency of forensic referrals made, the types of structured professional instruments commonly utilized, and rationales for why instruments may or may not be used. The authors found that in most evaluations, structured professional instruments were used (74.2%). However, there were nearly 300 instruments cited. Neal and Grisso explore the potential benefits and drawbacks of having such a diverse array of instruments available on the overall reliability of the forensic mental health field.
Next, the fourth article comes from Rabeea Assy and Doron Menashe, who focus on risk assessment in the context of parole for Israeli prisoners. Israel’s system of parole is described, as well as the conditions under which a prisoner may be granted parole through a risk assessment procedure. Assy and Menashe focus specific attention on the problematic legal procedure for sex offenders who deny their crimes. Because Israeli national forensic policy states that without admission of guilt, a risk assessment will not be administered, many prisoners are never granted an opportunity for parole.
Last, the issue concludes with an article that focuses on the predictive validity of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory–Screening Version (YLS/CMI-SV) on a large sample of youth offenders from Singapore. Chi Meng Chu, Hui Yu, Yirong Lee, and Gerald Zeng sampled 3,264 youth to test the instrument’s predictive validity on violent, non-violent, and general recidivism. Moreover, analyses were disaggregated by gender. Chu et al. found that the YLS/CMI-SV was a useful tool in predicting recidivism for boys, but that more investigation is necessary before a similar conclusion can be made with girls. Given this finding and the research indicating that females have unique risk factors compared with males (e.g., Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009), we agree with the authors when they conclude that, “It is imperative that scholars, practitioners, and policy makers consider this issue of gender-responsive assessments (and ultimately treatment) for female youth offenders” (p. 1437, this issue).
This special issue would not have been possible without the dedicated scholarly contributions of the authors. We thank each of them for their contributions, and we sincerely hope CJB readers will find the “black box” of international violence risk assessment illuminated enough to get involved in scholarly efforts outside the United States.