Four clinical psychiatrists and a psychologist provide specialized treatment programs. Total protective scores TPS can range from 0 to The historical subscale comprises 10 items e. One of its most common uses is as an actuarial risk assessment tool for predicting the risk of reoffending. The remaining three items do not correlate significantly with either of these factors. Individuals who score 25 or more in Europe or 30 or more in the United States are considered to be psychopathic Semple, The 12 items [e. Total scores, which range from —24 to 38, are used to assign offenders to one of three risk categories: —24 to —8, low risk; —7 to 13, medium risk; 14 to 38, high risk Harris et al.
Once the procedure had been approved by Lausanne University Hospital's Human Research Ethics Committee, the two main researchers went to the prison to present the study to eligible candidates. Offenders who agreed to participate signed a study agreement ensuring them complete confidentiality.
Ratings were determined by three researchers who had been trained to use these four instruments. In general, these reports also included past criminal reports, police reports, clinical and psychological reports, and final forensic expert reports. Offenders' misconduct histories were monitored for 12 months following the study, through the assessment of prison records.
The researchers were not aware of the offenders' misconduct histories during the rating process, as folders reporting misconduct had been set apart by the prison records administrator. Type I error rates were set at 0. We generated predictions for three categories of misconduct see Section 3. ROC curves are drawn by plotting the true positive rate sensitivity against the false positive rate 1 — specificity. An AUC of 0. Applying these stricter thresholds improves the reliability of interpretations of AUC values. This is of the utmost importance due to the impact of forensic professionals' recommendations on sentencing.
For example, although judges are often skeptical about the capabilities of forensic science, they usually follow experts' recommendations, especially with respect to treatment and risk assessment. The present study analyzed records for 52 violent offenders in a Swiss prison in order to evaluate validity of four instruments used to predict physically violent misconduct as well their prediction for other and any misconduct. The results showed that all four instruments are capable of differentiating between prisoners who are likely to commit physically violent misconduct and those who are unlikely to do so.
Nevertheless, some scales showed poor to failing predictive validity. This was even more frequent with respect to other misconduct and, to a lesser extent, to predictions of any misconduct i. For example, Endrass et al. Our results also confirm the findings of the small number of studies to have investigated the validity of risk assessment instruments in discriminating and predicting physically violent misconduct in correctional settings Belfrage et al. Prisoners who committed physically violent misconduct had lower protection scores and higher risk scores on most of the scales and subscales of the four instruments assessed.
All four instruments showed moderate to good predictive validity for physically violent misconduct. According to the SFJs, the offenders in our sample presented a moderate risk of committing other misconduct. However, FPJs and FRJs were less accurate than numeric scores in determining which prisoners were most likely to commit any misconduct.
All four instruments showed lower predictive validities for any misconduct and much lower predictive validities for other misconduct. Most notably, protection factors do not appear to predict any misconduct or other misconduct. In contrast to some studies of relapses by former prisoners released into the community or prisoners in psychiatric facilities Abidin et al.
This is in line with recent studies suggesting that despite differences in the theoretical bases underlying the four instruments, they tend to measure the same core construct Yang et al. The only significant differences we found concerned scales and subscales that showed poor to failing AUC values.
This validates our decision to adopt more conservative AUC critical values. It also highlights the importance of carefully interpreting ROC curves results as well as the use of comparisons analysis. Often drinking is a way to unwind, whether as a social activity with other COs or to relieve stress. But when a CO clearly has a problem with the bottle , should his peers tell a supervisor? Do we try to help him or her?
- Gender, Commensality and Community among the Airo-Pai of West Amazonia (Secoya, Western-Tukanoan Speaking).
- Chemistry of Heterocyclic Compounds: Pyridine and its Derivatives, Supplement, Part One, Volume 14.
- 1998 National Youth Gang Survey Results and Three-Year Trends.
- Inmate relationships with prison staff: Research roundup - Journalist's Resource;
If a CO is involved with illegal drugs, then he may be a ripe set up for smuggling contraband, leading to corruption charges. Inmate manipulation schemes often start with a CO or staff member accepting notes, cards or gifts homemade or acquired from inmates. Contractors or vendors conducting business with the facility may give gifts to acquire preferential treatment or favors.enter site
If accepted, the CO shows that he may bend the rules or play favorites. COs and staff should be objective and fair. If they discriminate based on age, race, ethnicity, sexual preference and national origin, this appears ugly, unprofessional and will result in bad feelings from both inmates and staff. Sex with inmates, contraband smuggling and gang activity were all traced back to inmates taking advantage of COs who abused their authority. These actions blur professional boundaries between correctional staff and inmates.
The line is crossed, either through manipulation by the inmates or a staff member making a bad decision or a combination of both. The fallout can range from smuggling contraband, aiding an escape or having sex with inmates. In recent years, such violations surfaced in the Clinton prison escape , the scandals involving the Baltimore City Detention Center , and inmates having firearms and drugs inside the New Orleans jail.
Boundary violations also include COs engaging in sexual harassment against staff members such as asking for dates, stalking and inappropriate touching.
In my career, I have come across cases where correctional officers have used excessive force on inmates and have paid for it with loss of jobs, criminal convictions and incarceration. For example, a jail deputy in Mississippi received a life sentence in the beating death of an inmate in Nine other jail officers received prison sentences for federal crimes of abusing inmates between and One was a former assistant head of security, one was a captain and four were correctional officers.
The sentences in that case ranged from four-and-a-half to six-and-a-half years. The vast majority of correctional officers, institutional staff and jail deputies I have met in my travels are professional, well trained and decent people. They enter a hostile environment every day putting their lives on the line to keep the public safe. There is no guarantee they will return home safely at the end of their shift. I also believe that most correctional officers who take the wrong fork in the road are salvageable, if they have not gone too far. By watching out for each other, supervisors and colleagues can pull stray COs back from the brink of the slippery slope.
While reports of thefts, mishandling property or substance abuse among correctional officers are, in my view, rare, incidents of excessive force, sex with inmates and corruption are unfortunate frequent embarrassments to our field. As professionals, we must do what we can, whenever we can, to prevent fellow officers and staff from falling into the pitfalls of deviance. More CorrectionsOne Articles. More Contraband News. Childhood Victimization.
Professional Misconduct against Juveniles in Correctional Treatment Settings - CRC Press Book
David Finkelhor. Foundations of Forensic Mental Health Assessment. Kirk Heilbrun. Essentials of Community Corrections. Robert D. New Directions in Special Education. Thomas Hehir. Dictionary of Ethical and Legal Terms and Issues. Len Sperry. Children's Rights. Jean A.
Unifying Educational Systems. Leonard C. Kinship Care. Ramona Denby. Innovations in Child and Family Policy. Emily M. Sexual Violence and Abuse. Judy Postmus. Advocating for Children in Foster and Kinship Care. Mitchell Rosenwald. Evaluating Social Programs and Problems. Stewart I. Inclusion Practices with Special Needs Students.
How does the Monday Morning program work?
Steven I Pfeiffer. Including Everyone. Judith Jellison. Peer Pressure, Peer Prevention. Barbara J. Megan J. Forensic Social Work. Carolyn Bradley. Complaints and Grievances in Psychotherapy. Fiona Palmer Barnes. Juvenile Justice. Francine Sherman. Understanding Juvenile Justice and Delinquency. Marilyn D. School Social Work.
- Lucy Rose: Working Myself to Pieces and Bits?
- Correctional Policy and Procedure | National Institute of Corrections.
- Professional Misconduct against Juveniles in Correctional Treatment Settings-Iwemi Online bookstore.
Leticia Villarreal Sosa. Applied Psychology. JoAnn Jarolmen. Encyclopedia of Community Corrections. Shannon M. Anatomy of Injustice. Raymond Bonner. Animal Rights. Paul Waldau. Critical Issues in Child Welfare. Joan Shireman. Hiding from Humanity.