Suicide-related research in clinical forensic settings
In a study Holland et al. (1983), 343 male offenders were assessed for dangerous by the clinical staff and later assessed by an actuarial scale to show a comparison. Of the 23 offenders that the clinical staff recommended for detention, 35% of them were rearrested even after their release based on another assessment conducted by the use of an actuarial assessment tool.
In addition, of the offenders released after assessment by the clinical staff 8% of them were rearrested and convicted of violent crimes. It showed the insufficiency of both tools if applied independently (Nelson et al., 2000).
………………………Middle of paper………………………
There is no tool sufficiently researched that is in a position to objectively determine when an individual should be confined on the ground of their dangerousness either to themselves or to others (Nock & Kazdin, 2002). Even the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) suggested by many authors did not meet the standards.
However, forensic psychology professionals should ensure that the clinical forensic settings consider the tools and knowledge of actuarial assessment schemes since they would be a crucial tool at reaching the determinant of the dangerousness of an individual. It is, however, premature to apply only the actuarial tools without the clinical tools (Thomas).
Holland, T. R., Holt, N., Levi, M., & Beckett, G. E. (1983). Comparison and combination of clinical and statistical predictions of recidivism among adult offenders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 203-211.