Threats to kill: a follow-up study

Background. Mental health clinicians are frequently asked to assess the risks presented by patients making threats to kill, but there are almost no data to guide such an evaluation. Method. This data linkage study examined serious violence following making threats to kill and the potential role of mental disorder. A total of 613 individuals convicted of threats to kill had their prior contact with public mental health services established at the time of the index offence. The group's subsequent criminal convictions were established 10 years later using the police database. Death from suicidal or homicidal violence was also established. Results. Within 10 years, 44 % of threateners were convicted of further violent offending, including 19 (3 %) homicides. Those with histories of psychiatric contact (40 %) had a higher rate (58 %) of subsequent violence. The highest risks were in substance misusers, mentally disordered, young, and those without prior criminal convictions. Homicidal violence was most frequent among threateners with a schizophrenic illness. Sixteen threateners (2.6 %) killed themselves, and three were murdered. Conclusions. In contrast to the claims in the literature that threats are not predictive of subsequent violence, this study revealed high rates of assault and even homicide following threats to kill. The mentally disordered were overrepresented among threat offenders and among those at high risk of subsequent violence. The mentally disordered threateners at highest risk of violence were young, substance abusing, but not necessarily with prior convictions. Those who threaten others were also found to be at greater risk of killing themselves or being killed

Criminal and Noncriminal Psychopathy: The Devil is in the Detail

Brooks, NS ORCiD: 0000-0003-1784-099XPsychopathy is prevalent and problematic in criminal populations, but is also found to be present in noncriminal populations. In 1992, Robert Hare declared that psychopaths may also “be found in the boardroom”, which has since been followed by an interest in the issue of noncriminal, or even successful, psychopathy. In this chapter, the paradox of criminal and noncriminal psychopathy is discussed with specific attention given to the similarities and differences that account for psychopathic personality across contexts. That psychopathy is a condition typified by a constellation of traits and behaviours requires wider research across diverse populations, and thus the streams of research related to criminal and noncriminal psychopathy are presented and the implications of these contrasting streams are explored

The utility of the Historical Clinical Risk -20 Scale as a predictor of outcomes in decisions to transfer patients from high to lower levels of security-A UK perspective

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) approaches to violence risk assessment are increasingly being adopted into clinical practice in international forensic settings. The aim of this study was to examine the predictive validity of the Historical Clinical Risk -20 (HCR-20) violence risk assessment scale for outcome following transfers from high to medium security in a United Kingdom setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The sample was predominately male and mentally ill and the majority of cases were detained under the criminal section of the Mental Health Act (1986). The HCR-20 was rated based on detailed case file information on 72 cases transferred from high to medium security. Outcomes were examined, independent of risk score, and cases were classed as "success or failure" based on established criteria.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean length of follow up was 6 years. The total HCR-20 score was a robust predictor of failure at lower levels of security and return to high security. The Clinical and Risk management items contributed most to predictive accuracy.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although the HCR-20 was designed as a violence risk prediction tool our findings suggest it has potential utility in decisions to transfer patients from high to lower levels of security.</p

As Far as the Eye Can See: Relationship between Psychopathic Traits and Pupil Response to Affective Stimuli

Psychopathic individuals show a range of affective processing deficits, typically associated with the interpersonal/affective component of psychopathy. However, previous research has been inconsistent as to whether psychopathy, within both offender and community populations, is associated with deficient autonomic responses to the simple presentation of affective stimuli. Changes in pupil diameter occur in response to emotionally arousing stimuli and can be used as an objective indicator of physiological reactivity to emotion. This study used pupillometry to explore whether psychopathic traits within a community sample were associated with hypo-responsivity to the affective content of stimuli. Pupil activity was recorded for 102 adult (52 female) community participants in response to affective (both negative and positive affect) and affectively neutral stimuli, that included images of scenes, static facial expressions, dynamic facial expressions and sound-clips. Psychopathic traits were measured using the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Pupil diameter was larger in response to negative stimuli, but comparable pupil size was demonstrated across pleasant and neutral stimuli. A linear relationship between subjective arousal and pupil diameter was found in response to sound-clips, but was not evident in response to scenes. Contrary to predictions, psychopathy was unrelated to emotional modulation of pupil diameter across all stimuli. The findings were the same when participant gender was considered. This suggests that psychopathy within a community sample is not associated with autonomic hypo-responsivity to affective stimuli, and this effect is discussed in relation to later defensive/appetitive mobilisation deficits

The guilty but mentally ill verdict

Abstract not available

The Jail Screening Assessment Tool

Abstract not available

Preventing the Detention of Noncriminal Mentally Ill People in Jails: The Need for Emergency Protective Custody Units

I. Introduction II. The Jail Experience and Its Psychological Effects III. Detaining Mentally Ill People in Jails ... A. The Prevalence of Mental Illness in Jails ... B. The Criminalization Hypothesis ... C. Importance of Addressing Mental Health Concerns in the Criminal Justice System ... D. Criminal Justice System or Mental Health System? IV. Alternatives to Detaining Mentally Ill People in Jails ... A. Secure Mental Hospitals ... B. General Hospitals ... C. Private Hospitals and Mental Health Facilities ... D. Other Institutions ... E. Emergency Protective Custody Facilities V. Statutory Restrictions for Detaining Mentally Ill People in Jails ... A. Legislation Prohibiting the Detention of the Noncriminal Mentally Ill in Jails ... B. Legislation Permitting the Detention of the Noncriminal Mentally Ill in Jails Pending Transfer to Other Facilities ... C. Legislation Providing for the Emergency Detention of Noncriminal Mentally Ill People in Hospitals or Community Mental Health Centers ... D. Legislation Providing for the Emergency Detention of Noncriminal Mentally Ill People in Approved Facilities ... E. Legislation Providing for Emergency Protective Custody Units for the Evaluation and Treatment of the Noncriminal Mentally Ill VI. Nebraska Legislative Bill 257—The Development of Emergency Facilities for the Temporary Detention of Noncriminal Mentally Ill Dangerous People ... A. Counties with Cities of the First Class Must Contract with Medical Facilities for the Placement of Noncriminal Mentally Ill People ... B. Noncriminal Mentally Ill People May Not Be Detained in Jails in Counties with Cities of the First Class ... C. Noncriminal Mentally Ill People May Be Temporarily Held in Jails in Counties without Cities of the First Class ... D. CMHCs Must Collect Data on Detainees VII. The Lancaster County Crisis Center Program ... A. The Lancaster County Crisis Center Screening Process ... B. Evaluation and Treatment within the Crisis Center ... C. Data from the Lancaster County Crisis Center ... D. Data from Lancaster County Corrections and the Lincoln Regional Center Before and After the Opening of the Crisis Center VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations IX . Appendi

Risk assessment and the dangerous offender

Abstract not available