Introduction
Crime is a phenomenon that is innate to human beings because it has existed during the whole history of mankind. All attempts to fight crime, to eliminate it, or at least reduce its rates have always failed because crime is in human nature. However, recently people have started thinking about the ways to prevent crime which are more helpful in the situation when the crime itself can not be eliminated (Bonta, 2002). One of the ways to prevent crime is to determine the reasons and risks that this or that person can commit or repeat the crime that he or she has already committed once. Thus, risk assessment procedures and major factors that predetermine crime commitment risks have always been the subject of study of numerous scholars (Rosenfeld, 2004). This paper focuses on the review of two articles that aim at revealing the current issue.
Offender Risk Assessment
The article by Bonta (2002) is a rather valuable source of information about the major means of assessing the risks that are present in the field of repeated crime commitment. In other words, the main idea of the article is to show that criminology and criminal psychology are in need of instruments that would allow them to determine the major reasons people have for a crime committed and identify the groups of people who are most of all likely to be criminals. According to Bonta (2002), the major role of all the types of correctional facilities that mankind has invented during its existence is to differentiate between those who will continue crime commitment and those who display no such risk. If the correctional facilities have such means, their performance will be more effective and will involve less effort and funding due to its proper organization. In more detail, Bonta (2002) argues that identification of the so-called risk groups of potential criminals will allow concentration of more attention on them and ensure better performance of the system of justice. Thus, drawing from these statements, Bonta (2002) develops the research in which the major focus is the identification of tools and instruments that allow practitioners and criminologists to determine the rate of risk in any particular group of offenders.
Bonta (2002) starts with the claim that only the proven and strongly supported data of research in the field of criminology and criminal psychology are reliable and paramount instruments for risk assessment procedures. The author criticizes the generally accepted practice of risk assessment based on the subjective opinions and impressions of a practitioner who draws a conclusion on the grounds of generalized assumptions that are not suitable for any particular group of offenders. As a result, Bonta (2002) offers the use of only relevant and checked assessment procedures and tests that would be created for any particular case separately and checked properly before implementation. This, according to the author, will allow obtaining the most objective results of risk assessment procedures and criminological tests with either actual or potential offenders.
Thus, it can be stated that the article by Bonta (2002) is a rather relevant source of information on the risk assessment instruments. This article operates with research evidence and specific data, which add to its credibility. Moreover, the manner of presentation of the information in the paper is rather convenient and readable for average readers and not only for specialists in criminology. The article is based on the research data; it is supported theoretically; it presents the criticism of the irrelevant methods of risk assessment and offers new ones that are more applicable according to the author’s point of view (Bonta, 2002).
Violence Risk Factors in Stalking
The article by Rosenfeld (2004) is another important source of information on the issues of risk assessment and management in criminology. However, compared to the article by Bonta (2002), this paper reveals one of the specific areas of offense that are in need of risk assessment instruments. The work by Rosenfeld (2004) discloses the risk management in the sphere of stalking and obsessional harassment as the ones that are of major importance for modern society. These issues are of specific nature due to their “non-assaulting” character because the actual assault or attack of the criminal usually does not take place in the cases of stalking or harassment. The victims are mostly afraid of the possibility of future assaults and are stressed due to the uncertainty of their positions. That is why stalking is mainly connected with the danger of moral offense and stress, which are caused to victims of stalking or obsessional harassment. Needless to say that in this case, the risk assessment is also based on the moral and mental health of the potential or actual stalkers and their victims (Rosenfeld, 2004).
According to Rosenfeld (2004), the main areas of interest in assessing and managing the risks of stalking are psychiatric testing of the potential criminals and qualified expertise of their mental conditions. In other words, those who take up the practices of stalking and those who become their victims have their own reasons, motivations, and problems that lead them to such decisions. Often it is the case that stalking or obsessional harassment is only the result of the rich imagination of a person or his or her mental problems. In such situations, there is a need for the close examination of the people who consider themselves to be victims of stalking. However, in any case, there are five major areas according to which stalking risks should be analyzed. They are:
- in what relations stalkers and victims are;
- what the motives of the stalker are;
- in what mental condition the stalker is;
- what the extent of the mental vulnerability of the victim of stalking is;
- in which situation the stalking occurs. (Rosenfeld, 2004).
According to these principles, the assessment of potential stalking risks should be carried out to ensure the most objective results and foreseeable consequences. Drawing from this, it can be stated that the article by Rosenfeld (2004) is a relevant source of data in such a field of criminal psychology as crime risk assessment and management. The article is based on the research-proven pieces of evidence, which are supported by the strong theoretical grounds that are demonstrated by Rosenfeld (2004) in the Literature Review section and throughout the paper. The examples of stalking are analyzed from the positions of the author, and respective conclusions about the usefulness of the comprehensive risk assessment procedures are drawn.
Conclusion
Thus, to make the respective conclusion, it is necessary to state that the issue of risk assessment is one of the central points of criminology and criminal psychology. The studies dedicated to this very issue are rather relevant because they present updated, research-proven, and theoretically supported information that allows specialists and average readers to be aware of the major instruments of control and assessment of crime commitment risks in society. Both articles analyzed in this paper are reliable sources of information due to the fact that they are published in peer-reviewed academic journals, while their authors are famous in the world of psychology and criminology.
References
Bonta, J. (2002). Offender Risk Assessment: Guidelines for Selection and Use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 355-379.
Rosenfeld, B. (2004). Violence Risk Factors in Stalking and Obsessional Harassment: A Review and Preliminary Meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 9-36.