ABSTRACT
In order for current dangerousness legislation to apply, an offender must first be ‘assessed as being dangerous’ (s. 229 CJA 2003). This is the case even though it has been recognised that people are rarely dangerous per se, rather it being the situations that they find themselves in that are the cause of their dangerousness (Floud and Young 1981). Also, as Castel (1991) notes, dangerousness is a feeling that can only be reliably predicted after an event has taken place, and so, in order to predict dangerous behaviour, it is necessary to focus on something other than mere dangerousness. In terms of penal policy and practice, it is therefore more correct and practical to refer to the likelihood that the offender will reoffend and cause serious harm, and, indeed, this is the basis of the dangerousness test in the CJA 2003. The main question, therefore, is how likely it is that a given offender will commit further serious offences. In penal circles, this is assessed through a reliance on risk and the presence of risk factors, which are used to determine whether or not someone is likely to be dangerous. This, therefore, sees the focus changing from dangerousness to risk. This is because risk of reoffending is not the same as dangerousness, with the former relating to imminence of behaviour and the latter to severity (Craig et al. 2008). Risk of recidivism and the assessment of this is therefore the main subject of this chapter. In particular, it addresses what is meant by the concept of risk, how risk assessments are made and, importantly, whether such methods are reliable and effective.
