When is historic risk history? Non-recent sexual offending and risk assessment

Abstract

Assessing and managing risk is seen as a key task for probation staff and its practice is outlined by the Risk of Serious Harm Guidance. This comment piece asks whether this guidance is always applied with reference to historic or non-recent sexual offending. Using a specimen case, the process is outlined and discussed. The reasons for false positive assessments are considered as are the consequences in terms of legitimacy, desistance and resources.

Keywords

sexual offending risk assessment false positive approved premises desistance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beech

Craig

(2012) The current status of static and dynamic factors in sexual offender risk assessment. Journal of Aggression 4: 4.

Bhui

(1999) Race, Racism and Risk Assessment: Linking Theory to Practice with Black Mentally Disordered Offenders.

Craissati

(2015) Should we worry about sex offenders who deny their offences? Probation Journal 62(4): 395–405.

Crown Prosecution Service (2023) Sexual Offences: Non recent sexual offences. Available at: https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/sexual-offences (accessed 01 July 2024).

Douglas T, Pugha J, Singha I, et al. (2017) Risk assessment tools in criminal justice and forensic psychiatry: the need for better data. European Psychiatry 42: 134–137.

Harper

Hicks

(2022) The effect of attitudes towards individuals with sexual convictions on professional and student risk judgments .

Heffernan

Ward

(2018) Dynamic risk factors, protective factors and value-laden practices. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law 26(2): 312–328.

Helmus

(2021) Estimating the probability of sexual recidivism among men charged or convicted of sexual offences: evidence-based guidance for applied evaluators. Sexual Offending: Theory Research, and Prevention 2021(16): Article 4283.

HMIP (2017) Probation Hostels’ (Approved Premises) Contribution to Public Protection. Rehabilitation and Resettlement: An inspection by HM Inspectorate of Probation. HM Inspectorate of Probation.

10.

HMIP (2024) The role of the senior probation officer and management oversight in the Probation Service: An inspection by HM Inspectorate of Probation.

11.

HMPPS (2023) HM Prison & Probation Service workforce quarterly: December 2023. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hm-prison-probation-service-workforce-quarterly-december-2023.

12.

Howard

Wakeling

(2021) Comparing two predictors of sexual recidivism: The Risk Matrix 2000 and the OASys Sexual Reoffending Predictor. Ministry of Justice, and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.

13.

Kemshall

(1998) Defensible decisions for risk: or ‘it’s the doers wot get the blame’. Probation Journal 45(2): 67–72.

14.

Kemshall

(2021) Bias and Error in Risk Assessment and Management. HMIP Academic Insights. Available at: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk (accessed 01 July 2024).

15.

Marston

Reeves

(2022) Reimagining probation practice re-forming rehabilitation in an age of penal excess .

16.

Moore

(2015) A compendium of research and analysis on the Offender Assessment System (OASys).

17.

Public Protection Group (2020) Risk of Serious Harm Guidance (ROSH).

18.

Smith

Burnett

(2018) The origins of the Jimmy Savile scandal. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 38(1/2): 26–40.

19.

Tuddenham

(2000) Beyond defensible decision-making: Towards reflexive assessment of risk and dangerousness .

20.

Wakeling

(2022) Relapses and challenges of desistance: hearing the voices of men convicted of sexual offences on release from prison. Prison Service Journal 2022: 260.

21.

Weaver

(2018) Time for policy redemption: a review of the evidence on the disclosure of criminal records. Available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/64981/.