Orensic Psychology: Discuss the assessment and treatment issues that arise when managing violent people”

A brief plan of the essay

.Definition and short discussion of violent offenders

.All different methods of how they are assessed and treateda¦..

.discussing the issues that arrise when they are assessed and treated considera¦a¦a¦.
Risk assessmenta¦
Violence to self / violence to others.
Have a good look at the assessment literature shown belowa¦..
Youa?ll be looking at more than one type of assessment. (Risk, violence, PD perhaps) What are perceived as most suitable in the literature, why?
What are the main issues that make assessment difficult? (e.g. limitations in empirical research in this area?,
What about personality disordered violent offenders?) What types of factors can impact treatment (depends on type of treatment), what issues arise when managing violence?

And concluding with some discussion of how issues can be resolved, what the research says re. best practice etc.


KEY REFERENCES!!!(will have good info in these references)

Beech, A. R., Fisher, D. D., & Thornton, D. (2003). Risk assessment of sex offenders. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(4), pp. 339-352.

Kroner, C, Stadtland, C, Eidt, M., & Nedopil, N. (2007). The validity of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) in predicting criminal recidivism. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 17 (2), p89-100.

Shaffer, C. E., Waters, W. F., Adams, & Serrhel G. (1994). Dangerousness: Assessing the risk of violent behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(5), pp. 1064-1068.

See also the website for RAMAS, where you can gain access to a number of relevant articles in the publications section: uk





Some help with violence definitionsa¦
Violence denotes the a?forceful infliction of physical injurya (Blackburn, 1993). Aggression involves harmful, threatening or antagonistic behaviour (Berkowitz, 1993). Longitudinal studies are invaluable in mapping out the range of factors and processes that contribute to the development of aggressive behaviour and in showing how they are causally related (Farrington, 2000).

Possibly a good way to start into the main part ???a¦a¦a¦a¦

Predicting future risk of violent behaviour has a long and difficult history (Dolan & Doyle, 2000). There has been a gradual and helpful shift from a?dangerousnessa, as a subjective concept, to a?riska, which is a combination of factors, each of which is not necessarily dangerous in itself, that fluctuate over time and that may be modified and managed. Risk assessment and management of violence are key components of clinical practice.
Clinicians have traditionally assessed risk on an individual basis, using case formulation a?unaided clinical judgementa. Adult research has focused on the accuracy of risk prediction variables in large heterogeneous populations using relatively static actuarial predictions. The debate about clinical v. actuarial risk prediction has led to the development of violence prediction instruments that combine the importance of static actuarial variables and clinical/risk management items that clinicians take into account in risk assessment of individuals.
The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study (VRAS; Monahan & Appelbaum, 2000) highlights the significance of clinical factors in the prediction of violent outcomes in non-forensic psychiatric patients discharged from hospital. Cue domains in the VRAS are grouped under: dispositional factors; historical factors; contextual factors; and clinical factors.
Structured clinical judgements are a composite of empirical knowledge and professional clinical expertise. Webster et al (1997) have developed the Historical/Clinical Risk Management 20-item (HCRa 20) scale, where H1a 10 relate to history, C1a 5 to clinical factors and R1a 5 to risk, to assess risk of violence in clinical contexts.




Generic psychology marking criteria of my universitya¦.will be used when marking the essay!!

First Class (72, 75, 78) what I am looking for!!

First-class work is characterised by excellence and sophistication.
a? Knowledge and understanding is comprehensive with a sense of the complexity of the topic.

a? Explicitly answers the question, with a very high standard of critical analysis.

a? Announces its global structure at start and sticks closely to this announced structure.

a? The structure of argument is original, effective and integrated with clear relationships between statements.

a? Gives wide-ranging and appropriate evidential support for claims made, and shows extensive, evaluative and critical knowledge of the literature.

a? Draws conclusions that effectively summarise the issues and arguments discussed.

a? Linguistic style is succinct, vigorous, lucid and fluent.

a? Scholarly conventions, including APA-style referencing, are meticulously observed.
Within this category, there are three marks that can be awarded: 72%, 75%, 78%
As a minimum, a first-class piece of work must answer the question, be well-constructed and, crucially, show evidence of extensive independent reading and thinking. The higher marks within the category will reflect higher quality structure, argument and use of evidence. To achieve a mark of 78%, a piece of work must be very well written, develop an argument that is original in the sense that the influence of the students own thinking is clearly apparent, and draw on a broad range of material.

Upper Second Class (62, 65, 68)
Upper second-class work is characterised by serious strengths and a high level of competence.
a? Knowledge and understanding is thorough and secure.
a? Attempts to answer the question in an analytic way, with a high standard of critical analysis.
a? Has a detectable and announced global structure that is adhered to for the most part.
a? The structure of the argument is well-developed and clear, with relationships between statements that are easy to follow.
a? Supports daims by reference to a broad and considerable range of relevant literature and/or theory.
a? Draws conclusions that summarise the issues and arguments discussed.
a? Linguistic style is direct and accurate.
a? Scholarly conventions, including APA-style referencing are very well observed.
Within this category, the three marks that can be awarded are: 62%, 65%, 68%.
As a minimum, an upper-second class piece of work must answer the question in a clearly written, comprehensive and balanced way, and show signs that the student has read beyond basic source material. This would normally mean reading beyond lecture materials and secondary sources such as textbooks. The higher marks within the category will reflect clearer structure, a stronger line of argument, and the use of a broader range of material.