Forensic crime 3200
Respond to both the’ posts by explaining why you agree or disagree with their forensic risk assessment instrument choice and defend your explanation with at least one scholarly resource.
Hannah: Main Question Post:
This case follows an adult male, named Jay, in his twenties, who was arrested for online sexual contact with a minor. Jay grew up in a home with two parents, who were unemployed, and two sisters. In this case, Jay denied any abuse or trauma during his upbringing but notes that there was some school bullying from a male peer as well as feeling as if he did not receive enough attention from his mother. Due to this perceived lack of attention, Jay engaged in behaviors to get his mothers attention. One instance was when he took some of his mother’s medications and another being his bed wetting that required him to wear a diaper until the age of eleven (Tully, 2019).
In adulthood, Jay experienced job instability and an abusive relationship with a female partner. After breaking up with this partner, Jay entered a long-distance relationship with a woman he met online and would meet with every few months for intercourse. Jay admits, in this case, to searching for images of women wearing diapers online as well as wearing diapers himself and urinating in them (Tully, 2019).
In Jay’s messages to his minor victim, he mentions wanting her to wear a diaper, urinate in it and have penetrative sex with him. Unbeknownst to Jay, the minor he was speaking to online was a group that searches for predators online by pretending to me minors. When attempting to meet up with the minor, he was stopped by the predator hunting group and arrested by police (Tully, 2019).
In Jay’s case, the forensic psychology professional played an important role in obtaining the offenders background/demographic history as well as the details of the offence. The forensic psychology professional is then responsible for selecting appropriate risk assessment tools. In this case, the forensic psychology professional used the information collected to determine that Jay needed reoffending risk assessment and assessment of factors that contributed to his behavior. Overall, the forensic psychology professional’s role was to select the appropriate forensic risk assessment tool, administer and interpret it and then explain these findings to the court.
The forensic psychology professional in this case used both static and dynamic assessment tools as the offender’s history could be an indicator of sexual recidivism risk. The static risk assessment used was the Risk Matrix 2000. This assessment allowed the forensic psychologist to assess long term risk for sexual offending using the offender’s historical information. The Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) was used as a dynamic assessment tool and used current information and risk factors to determine sexual violence risk (Tully, 2019).
The Risk Matrix 2000 was useful in determining risk for sexual reoffence as it takes into consideration his history and compares the individual to other offenders. This assessment does not consider current risk factors, details of the crime or any behavioral changes that may occur over time. Due to these limitations, the RSVP was beneficial in filling in those gaps and taking into consideration behavioral changes over time and information related specifically to the offender’s case (Tully, 2019).
The assessments that a forensic psychology professional chooses to use are used in legal proceedings to aid in understanding, judgment and treatment decisions as well as providing a risk for recidivism.
Reference
Tully, R. J. (2019). Sexual deviancy: Assessment for court. In R. Tully & J. Bamford (Eds.), Case studies in forensic psychology (pp. 25–40). Routledge.
Aijah: Summary
Tully (2019) presents the case of Jay, a male in his twenties who pleaded guilty to several online sexual offenses involving what he believed to be a 12-year-old girl. The offenses included sexual communication with a child, grooming, and attempted encouragement of sexual activity. In reality, the child in question was a decoy profile operated by a vigilante group targeting sexual predators online. During the investigation, police discovered condoms, used and unused diapers, and female and male underwear in Jay’s home. This raised some concerns about unusual sexual interests and possible sexual deviance. The court requested a forensic psychological assessment to evaluate Jay’s level of risk, identify treatment needs, and provide recommendations regarding sentencing and management.
Role of Forensic Psychologist
The forensic psychologist played an important role in selecting and administering the forensic risk assessment instruments used in this case. Tully (2019) emphasized the importance of forensic psychologists selecting assessment tools based on the nature of the offense, the referral question from the court, and the offender’s clinical presentation. In Jay’s case, the psychologist selected both actuarial and structured professional judgment instruments to create a comprehensive assessment of sexual recidivism risk. Specifically, Tully used the Risk Matrix 2000 and the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP), along with psychological screening measures such as the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and other psychometric assessments.
Effectiveness
The Risk Matrix 2000 was selected because it is a validated actuarial tool commonly used in correctional and forensic settings to assess the likelihood of sexual and violent recidivism. The instrument evaluates factors such as age, criminal history, and offense characteristics to place offenders into risk categories. Jay was classified as a medium-risk sexual offender, indicating elevated risk factors relative to some offenders but not among the highest-risk categories. According to Thornton et al. (2020), the Risk Matrix 2000 is effective because it provides evidence-based statistical estimates of recidivism risk and allows professionals to compare offenders to established normative groups. This instrument was useful in Jay’s case because it provided the court with objective data to supplement clinical observations and helped establish the seriousness of his offending behavior.
The RSVP was also an important assessment instrument in this case because it evaluates dynamic and individualized risk factors associated with sexual violence. This assessment uses a structured professional judgment approach that considers psychological functioning, sexual deviance, social adjustment, mental disorder, and manageability. Tully used the RSVP to explore Jay’s intimacy deficits, attachment problems, possible deviant sexual interests, emotional vulnerabilities, and unhealthy coping mechanisms. This assessment was effective because it allowed the psychologist to develop a more individualized understanding of Jay’s offending patterns and identify treatment targets that could reduce future risk. Sutherland et al. (2012) found that the RSVP has a proven track history of forensic psychology professionals to be generally consistent in their evaluations when using the instrument. This consistency increases the credibility of forensic testimony and helps courts rely on the assessment findings when making legal decisions. In Jay’s case, the RSVP provided a structured method for understanding both the immediate and long-term risks associated with his offending behavior.
Implications
The selection of these assessment instruments had important implications for the outcome of the case. By combining actuarial and structured professional judgment methods, the psychologist was able to present a balanced and evidence-based evaluation to the court. The Risk Matrix 2000 offered statistical estimates of recidivism risk, while the RSVP provided insight into dynamic risk factors and treatment needs. This combination likely influenced sentencing decisions, recommendations for supervision, and treatment planning. Tully (2019) noted that risk assessments can affect decisions regarding detention, rehabilitation pathways, and community management.
References
Sutherland, A. A., Johnstone, L., Davidson, K. M., Hart, S. D., Cooke, D. J., Kropp, P. R., Logan, C., Michie, C., & Stocks, R. (2012). Sexual violence risk assessment: An investigation of the interrater reliability of professional judgments made using the risk for sexual violence protocol. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11(2), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2012.690020Links to an external site.
Thornton, D., Eberhaut, S., Ambroziak, G., & Eher, R. (2020). Assessment of relative risk for sexual and violent recidivism with Risk Matrix 2000. Sexual Offending, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.5964/sotrap.3129Links to an external site.
Tully, R. J. (2019). Sexual deviancy: Assessment for court. In R. Tully & J. Bamford (Eds.), Case studi