ABSTRACT
We begin with James Vess’ comprehensive overview of risk assessment within public protection. He examines current practices in risk assessment and the associated roles that mental health professionals play within the public protection framework. His extensive experience and knowledge in this field is the result of an entire career dealing with offenders in a variety of treatment, assessment and supervisory roles within a clinical setting. Having worked in both the United States and New Zealand, his current research into risk assessment gives him a unique insight into the practical application of clinical tools. His distinctive perspective offers an important discussion on one of the core problems facing many practitioners: the juxtaposition between the creation of punitive sex offender laws and the balancing of human rights to the individual. Using some core examples from America, Vess argues that various community protection laws can be classified by the degree to which they curtail the individual rights of sex offenders. He also makes the crucial point that the fear and revulsion of sex offenders creates a system whereby practitioners are more likely to be overly cautious when risk assessing the levels of harm. These false positives produce fewer negative consequences to both the practitioner, in terms of career prospects and professional standing, and the organisation managing that particular offender. Vess notes that unfortunately, this comes at the expense of the rights of the offender. Much of his discussion focuses on the role that mental health experts play in risk assessing individuals and it is here that he makes some telling points regarding the role of the expert. The mental health expert must ensure that in a forensic setting, the client is the judicial decision-maker, and ‘the expert’s responsibility is to provide the best available risk assessment evidence in a way that is not misleading’. However, Vess also provides a refreshingly objective overview of risk assessment techniques used within mental health. He argues that the various problems with risk assessment methods places the mental health professional in an awkward ethical position, when using these tools in a forensic setting. He states that what should be of fundamental concern is that the use of clinical risk assessments that restrict individual
freedoms and rights should be used in an ethical manner that evolves as laws develop. Vess reminds us of the inherent ethical tension between the trust and rapport that is developed in order for an offender to engage in a process of ‘self-revelation’, and the fact that this information could be used by social control agencies to restrict that individual’s freedom or extend their sentence. He proposes that setting clear boundaries regarding the role of the assessor and the assessment process ensures a more ethical stance, even though it may result in limited disclosure.
