The main thesis or primary idea of this reading is that actuarial approaches to offender risk assessment, instruments for the purposes of determining risks of recidivism have become more acceptable and preferable than the clinical assessments due to their high predictive accuracy.
The study by Bonta (2002) proceeds on several assumptions or hypotheses; To begin with, the study assumes that most correctional officers, parole board members and therapists will majorly rely on offender classification instruments and psychological tests in their day to day activities of assessing the offender risk for recidivism or reoffending. Moreover, the study hypothesizes that clinicians have a lesser role to play in determining or assessing the risk of reoffending and that psychologists are better placed to do that in the 21 century realities.
The main methods the author has used to test these hypotheses include the use of instruments such as the MMPI/MMPI-2 scales, Beck’s Depression Inventory, Gough’s Socialization Scale, HCR-20, Psychopathy Checklist– Revised (PCL-R), Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and the Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating (SONAR). The author has also used empirical data and evidence from a variety of earlier psychological studies on offender risk evaluation that have made use of these instruments and found them to be more effective than the clinical ones.
The primary results of this study are that the application of a multifaceted approach to risk assessment whereby several factors are considered in trying to explain certain criminal behavior is important. Furthermore, through the study, Bonta (2002) found out that in spite of the advancements made so far in offender risk assessment, “the use of the best and most current offender assessment instruments is not wide-spread” (p, 376). This research tells us that the topic of evaluation of recidivism risk factors among offenders is a continuously evolving one that requires flexibility and use of dynamic risk factors and instruments with high predictive values. We also learn that offender risk assessment for susceptibility to reoffending or recidivism based on their criminal behavior is an important venture in the criminal justice e system that needs to be constantly guided by research studies.
Yes, I believe the author has provided a persuasive argument as far as the need for and superiority of the psychological risk assessment instruments for offenders is concerned. He has proved that indeed these instruments are more predictive and given the evolving nature of crime and criminal behavior, we need instruments that are flexible, reliable and accurate so that we can reduce rates.
The main implications for correctional practice and policy are that correctional facilities and parole boards should base their offender risk assessment majorly on actuarial measures of risk while at the same time not ignoring the important role played by clinicians; such practice should focus on criminal behaviors and should consider the criminogenic need factors.
References
Bonta, J. (2002, August). Offender risk assesment: Gudelines for selection and use. Journal of Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 355-379.
