skip to main content
205-348-7908
  Jennifer Cox, Ph.D.
  • Dr. Cox
  • What We Do
  • Who We Are
  • Where We Go
  • How to Join
  • Announcements
  • Dr. Cox
  • What We Do
  • Who We Are
  • Where We Go
  • How to Join
  • Announcements

Megan Kopkin, Liz Bownes, and Dr. Cox Published in Behavioral Sciences and the Law!

10/2/2018

0 Comments

 
Cox, J., Fairfax-Columbo, J., DeMatteo, D., Vitacco, M.J., *Kopkin, M.R., Titcomb Parrott, C., *Bownes, E. (2018). An update on the role of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide and Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 in United States case law. Behavioral Sciences and the Law.

An individual's risk for future violent behavior may be considered in various legal contexts, including civil commitment, criminal sentencing, or suitability for parole. Among the assessment tools forensic evaluators use to assess violence risk are the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998) and the Historical Clinical Risk Managment‐20 (HCR‐20)/Historical Clinical Risk Management‐20, Version 3 (HCR‐20V3) (Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997 and Douglas, Hart, Webster, & Belfrage, 2013, respectively). Previous surveys and case law research suggest that these measures are widely used and perceived to be useful in aiding forensic clinicians. This study provides an update to Vitacco, Erickson, Kurus, and Apple (2012) and examines the use of the HCR‐20 and VRAG in United States case law. A LexisNexis review revealed 134 cases decided between 1 January 2010 and 21 December 2016 that included the HCR‐20, VRAG, or both. Results revealed that these measures are typically introduced by the prosecution to inform opinions regarding general violence risk. In addition, consistent with previous research, these data suggest the introduction of the HCR‐20 and VRAG is rarely challenged and, when challenged, these challenges are rarely successful. However, data suggest that courts and parole boards may focus on specific risk factors (e.g., lack of insight) at the expense of other, more objective factors. Finally, we offer suggestions for clinicians who have transitioned to the newest version of the HCR‐20.

0 Comments

    Archives

    August 2022
    March 2022
    August 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    November 2020
    June 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    August 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    October 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    August 2016
    April 2016
    December 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    January 2015
    August 2014

    Categories

    All
    Conference/Presentation
    Personal Milestones
    Publications

Accessibility | Equal Opportunity | UA Disclaimer | Site Disclaimer | Privacy
Copyright © 2020 | The University of Alabama | Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 | (205) 348-6010
Website provided by the Center for Instructional Technology, Office of Information Technology