Citation

Ryba NL. J. Forensic Psychol. Pract. 2008; 8(4): 413-423.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/15228930802199382

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Substantial progress has been made in improving the methods available to clinicians tasked with determining whether an offender will commit future acts of violence. Progress in this area has afforded clinicians a multitude of choices regarding what approach to take, what instruments to use, and what factors are relevant when assessing risk. Despite recommendations for practitioners to conduct balanced assessments, many continue to present a one-sided, risk-heavy picture. Calls for practitioners to consider protective factors and risk state (i.e., the likelihood one will become violent at any given time) appear to have gone unheard. A case involving a defendant who presented with minimal risk but in which the offender was committed by the judge anyway is presented. Suggestions are offered for alternative ways of presenting the case in which risk state and protective factors are considered. Recommendations for practice and directions for research in this area are outlined.