EVALUATING TRIBUNAL DECISIONS TO RELEASE OR DETAIN THOSE NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF MENTAL DISORDER
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Canadians adjudicated Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCR) are detained in forensic psychiatric hospitals under a jurisdictional review board (RB) regulated by the Canadian Criminal Code. Research is limited on whether jurisdictional RB practices uphold the federally legislated balance between public safety and social reintegration. This research investigated whether federal law is applied consistently within the Alberta RB (ARB) system across three phases. Phase One tracked the trajectories and outcomes of NCR individuals through the ARB system, Phase Two determined the predictors of ARB decisions and whether they account for risk or legislatively relevant information, and Phase Three examined forensic risk assessment instruments and their utility to assist forensic decision-making. Instruments included the Level of Service – Case Management Inventory, Historical Clinical Risk Management 20 – Version 3, and the Revised Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. A retrospective archival longitudinal design was used to examine a NCR cohort (n = 109) that entered the ARB system between 2005 and 2010 and their respective hearings (n = 327). Results demonstrated that the ARB aligned their operational and management practices with federal legislation, but unique deviations contributed to novel trajectories and outcomes under RB supervision compared to other provinces. Dispositions varied as a function of risk level and were informed by clinician recommendations. Although risk-relevant information was supplied to the ARB by forensic professionals, key criminogenic risk/need factors as defined by the LS/CMI were absent in most clinical reports. ARB decision-making, however, was still strongly predicted by risk and legislatively relevant information associated with general and violent recidivism. As time under ARB supervision passed and release likelihoods increased, the ARB progressively favoured dynamic over static factors germane to treatment change and risk management. Evidence supported the validity of the study instruments in the appraisal and management of recidivism, especially for violence. Federal duties charged to jurisdictional RBs in the management of NCR populations demands an assiduous consideration of risk and legally relevant information. Forensic risk assessment instruments are reliable and valid aspects of traditional offender programming and the results suggested that they may assist with the appraisal and management of criminal risk anchored in evidence-based practice. Clinical and policy implications of this research for RBs and forensic professionals are discussed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».