EVALUATING TRIBUNAL DECISIONS TO RELEASE OR DETAIN THOSE NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF MENTAL DISORDER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".