El derecho a la resistencia y las infracciones penales

Risk assessment is a multifactorial process predicting the likelihood of an event based on risk estimators (Hanson, 2009). Young people undergo risk assessments to identify their current needs based on present and past risk factors in place. Risk assessment is a complex process where clinical judgment plays a critical role in addition to the presence of risk factors (Scooner et al., 2012). Risk assessments have been described as

predictive tools whilst there is a debate surrounding the accuracy of these tools. However, these tools are essential and integral in the discharge process and, subsequently, in transitions to adult services. The level of

48

security a young person requires is determined partially from the risk assessment process where clinical, social and educational needs are addressed to determine the most suitable level of security or the most appropriate community placement for young people. Risk assessment also determines whether a young person could return to the community. Yet, this includes consideration of past offence, readiness to move to an independent lifestyle, risk of reoffending, and the views of the public and victim. There are cases, where the nature and severity of the offence cannot allow the young person’s release to the community due to the public’s outrage and the harm caused to the victim and their family. In some circumstances young people’s mental disorder symptoms may have been stabilised, their risk significantly diminished, and they may have developed prosocial skills, but the harm they have caused to the victim and the society in general may affect their care-trajectory.

Research purports that there is conflicting evidence on risk and there is a divide between healthcare professionals and policy makers and societal views on risk perception (Kemshall, 2000). The implications of risk

misperceptions are extended to young people’s care-pathways and policy making alongside institutional processes. Healthcare professionals come across ethical dilemmas when they have to offer clinical judgment

regarding a young person’s release to the community. For instance, a sex offence instigates the dilemma between offender’s rights and community safety (Scoones et al., 2012).

To date, there are several risk assessment tools such as the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) in an effort to identify high- risk groups (Borum, 2000). SAVRY is the most widely risk structured

assessment tool that is organised according to scientific evidence prevalent in youth development. It is tailored for youth between 12 and 18 years tackling violent behaviour and reoffending and includes historical, social and clinical indicators associated with offending behaviours in youth (Welsh

et al., 2008). SAVRY differs from other risk assessment tools including the presence or absence of protective factors such as resilience (Welsh et al.,

49

2008). Research has shown high predictive validity in young populations, and this might be explained by the fact that the tool was initially intended to be used only with adolescents (Singh et al., 2011). The majority of risk assessment tools focus on risk factors disregarding protective ones.

The strengths-based approach such as the Good Lives Model (GLM) purports that environmental factors, positive traits and skills are equally important to offenders’ rehabilitation to the community (Scoones et al.,

2012). According to GLM, violent behaviour results from lacking prosocial internal and/or external means to meet personal values. For example, poor social circumstances and comorbid mental health problems can enable antisocial behaviour and offending. However, if this group is provided with prosocial resources, they will have the potential to desist from crime and reintegrate to the community. Therefore, GLM offers a different

understanding of risk, as a dynamic factor, reinforcing release to the community. In contrast, policy makers have to ensure public safety and focus more on the outcome of the offence. Releasing an offender to the community, could negatively impact the victim’s and community’s wellbeing. The victim may have experienced trauma that could be re- activated at the prospect of the offender’s return to the community. Research findings suggest that offenders who have received proper planning and moving to the community have been less likely to reoffend (Willis and Grace, 2009). Release to the community could disrupt the victim’s recovery-in cases of abuse and severe assault and could increase feelings of powerlessness and exclusion from the criminal justice system. The community is also victimised by a crime, they are a secondary victim

and their voices should be considered (Zehr, 2015).

The Risk Need Responsivity (RNR) model treats offending behaviour as a multifactorial process and could be used in a wide range of therapeutic interventions (Looman and Abracen, 2013). This model considers biological, social, cultural, personality and social factors resulting in criminality. RNR entails more factors leading to crime than the GLM that focusses primarily on the offender’s strengths. Risk factors are paid equal

50

attention as protective ones and the offender is aware of the potential risks. This approach is more holistic and could potentially be embedded in

therapeutic interventions before discharge to community settings. For example, those young people ready to move back to the community, as part of their transition from FCAMHS, could benefit from RNR. Research findings have shown that offenders are more likely to develop

understandings of their risk if they have participated in RNR programmes (Looman and Abracen, 2013).

It has been reported that high-risk groups usually have an arrest history along with long-term hospitalisation (Douglas and Skeem, 2005). These factors are known as historical factors because they are static whilst dynamic factors are those that have the potential to change such as impulsiveness and treatment adherence. When a clinician is conducting a violence risk assessment both types of factors are relevant to clinical judgments.