discussion

 

Hello everyone,

        This week’s case dealt with the assessment process of a convicted male awaiting sentencing.

        Jay is a 20 something year old college educated man that was raised by father and mother, who has epilepsy, and has three sisters: two older half-sisters and one younger full sister (Tully & Bamford, 2019). Jay’s mother required full-time care which was provided by Jay’s father. Neither parent worked and were receiving state benefits, which they used as their main income to support the family (Tully & Bamford, 2019). Jay attended three years of college for which after he left, for about five years, outside of a contract position that he held for seven months, he did not acquire a job and volunteered at a charity shop while collecting state benefits (Tully & Bamford, 2019).

        Jay has had two sexual relationships. One being the first around the age of 19 and lasting for three years while the other, a long-distance relationship, was about five years after the end of the first relationship and was with a female he met online and have sex every couple of months when they met (Tully & Bamford, 2019). He was in this relationship up until he committed his offense.

        Jay was accused and pled guilty to the following charges: (1) attempting sexual communication with a minor, (2) grooming and attempting to meet a female under the age of 16, and (3) attempting to have sexual penetration with a female under the age of 13 (Tully & Bamford, 2019). The offenders alleged actions occurred over a span of four days. During this time, he had online sexual conversations with an individual presenting to be a 12-year-old female. Although the individual identified themselves as a 12-year-old female, Jay initiated sexual conversations which included him making sexual advancements, discussing sexual acts (oral and penetrative sex), suggestions for the 12-year-old female to dress in a diaper and take pictures of herself to share with him which would be their secret, as well as posing questions about her touching her vagina and if she would like for him to touch her vagina with his hand or penis (Tully & Bamford, 2019). He eventually suggested that they meet and then go to his home, providing a plan of where to meet and the methods to get there. At the designated meeting spot, instead of a 12-year-old girl that Jay expected, he was met by hey vigilante group that set up the profile and police (Tully & Bamford, 2019).

        The role the forensic psychology professional played in selecting the forensic risk assessment instruments used in this case is that of an evaluator. The purpose of the tools is to aid the forensic psychology professional in gathering information that they can review, analyze and then evaluate factors that can increase or mitigate risk which is then provided to their client in a medium which will allow their client to make an educated and knowledgeable decision (Simmons, et al., 2023). In other words, the tools allow the evaluator to use and present the data in a way that can be digested and is based on informed/empirical methodologies (Simmons, et al., 2023).

        In this case, the forensic psychology professional, the evaluator, used multiple assessment tools to compile the necessary data to determine risk. Tools such as the Risk Matrix 2000 and the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP). The evaluator also used the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors to identify protective factors that would mitigate recidivism. These are examples of the characteristics of the assessment that make it effective for this case. To make an appropriate assessment that is impartial, unbiased, and empirically based, use methodologies that include both factors that would increase or decrease/ mitigate recidivism is preferred (Simmons et al., 2023).

        The implications regarding the selection of the assessment instrument used in this case are that the assessment is fair and based on tools that are based on empirical data. For instance, the RSVP is an instrument developed from a comprehensive analysis of scholarly literature on sexual violence (Tully & Bamford, 2019), while the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF) evidence-based research (Burghart, et al., 2023). Use of assessment instruments as such shows that the evaluator is using instruments that are appropriate for the type of offense as well as ensuring that they provide a balanced and fair assessment.

References

Burghart, M., de Ruiter, C., Hynes, S. E., Krishnan, N., Levtova, Y., & Uyar, A. (2023). The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF): A meta-analysis of its predictive and incremental validity. Psychological Assessment, 35(1), , 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001184.

Simmons, M. L., Ogloff, J. R., & Daffern, M. (2023). Investigating the dynamic nature of multiple risk assessment instruments in a forensic mental health hospital. Psychological Assessment, 35(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001174.

Tully, R., & Bamford, J. (2019). Case Studies in Forensic Psychology: Clinical Assessment and Treatment. Taylor and Francis (Books) Limited UK.