Recidivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

 
Jump to: navigation, search

Recidivism (/rɨˈsɪdɨvɪzəm/; from recidive + ism, from Latin recidīvus "recurring", from re- "back" + cadō "I fall") is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been treated or trained to extinguish that behavior. It is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested for a similar offense.[1]

The term is most frequently used in conjunction with criminal behavior and substance abuse. (Recidivism is a synonym for "relapse", which is more commonly used in medicine and in the disease model of addiction). For example, scientific literature may refer to the recidivism of sexual offenders, meaning the frequency with which they are detected or apprehended committing additional sexual crimes after being released from prison for similar crimes.[citation needed]

To be counted as recidivism, the re-offending requires voluntary disclosure of arrest and conviction,[citation needed] so the real recidivism rate may differ substantially from reported rates. As another example, alcoholic recidivism might refer to the proportion of people who, after successful treatment, report having, or are determined to have, returned to the abuse of alcohol.

Recidivism in the United States[edit]

Overview[edit]

The effect of incarceration on former prisoners has been a very common topic of discussion for many years. In most cases, it is believed that many prisoners will find themselves right back where they started, in jail. In the United States, 53% of arrested males and 39% of arrested females are re-incarcerated (2003).[2]

In recent history, the rate of incarceration in the U.S. has increased dramatically, resulting in prisons being filled to capacity with bad conditions and environment for inmates. In many prisons, crime continues inside the prison walls. Gangs exist and flourish on the inside, often with many key tactical decisions being made by leaders who are in jail.[2]

While the U.S. Justice System has traditionally focused its efforts at the front end of the system, by locking people up, it has not exerted an equal effort at the tail end of the system: decreasing the likelihood of reoffending among formerly incarcerated persons. This is a significant issue because ninety-five percent of prisoners will be released back into the community at some point.[3]

According to a national study[which?], within 3 years almost 7 out of 10 released males will be rearrested and half will be back in prison. The study says this happens due to personal and situation characteristics, including the individual’s social environment of peers, family, community, and state-level policies.[2]

Many other things need to be taken into consideration as well, such as the individual’s circumstances before incarceration, the things that happened while they were incarcerated, and the period after they are released from prison, both immediate and long term.

One of the main reasons why they find themselves back in jail is because it is difficult for the individual to fit back in with ‘normal’ life. They have to reestablish ties with their family, return to high-risk places and secure formal identification; they often have a poor work history and now have a criminal record to deal with. Many prisoners report being anxious about their release; they are excited about how their life will be different “this time” which does not always end up being the case.[2]

Stakeholders[edit]

At the most direct and personal level, those who have the greatest fork in recidivism are: the formerly incarcerated person; their family (especially children); the victim of the crime they were re-incarcerated for (if there was one); and those employed by the justice system (from police, to parole officers, to jail guards, to those who build and profit from prisons, etc.). More broadly, however, recidivism affects everyone. Crime is a problem in every community (though some more so than others) and anyone can be a victim. Victimization can take many forms— from being directly injured in a violent crime, to being robbed, to having your sense of safety violated as result of living in an area where crime exists. Furthermore, all taxpayers are greatly impacted by the economic costs of crime.

Drug-Related Crime[edit]

Of U.S. federal inmates in 2010, about half (51%) were serving time for drug offenses[4] and many others likely committed crimes under the influence of one or more drugs, over drug-related disputes (turf battles etc.), or in order to obtain money to buy drugs—factors which were not necessarily cited in their charges.

It is estimated that three quarters of those returning from prison have a history of substance abuse. Over 70 percent of prisoners with serious mental illnesses also have a substance use disorder.[5] Nevertheless, only 7 to 17 percent of prisoners who meet DSM criteria for alcohol/drug dependence or abuse receive treatment in jail or prison[6]

Those involved in the criminal justice system have rates of substance abuse and dependence that are more than four times higher than the general population and fewer than 20 percent of federal and state prisoners who meet the criteria receive treatment.[7]

Effectiveness-Studies have shown that inmates who participate in residential treatment programs while incarcerated have 9 to 18 percent lower recidivism rates and 15 to 35 percent lower drug relapse rates than their counterparts who receive no treatment in prison.[8] Furthermore, inmates who receive aftercare (treatment after imprisonment) have an even greater chance of not recidivating. When combined with treatment that was given during incarceration aftercare can be a very useful tool in recidivism reduction. Some offenders have had a reduced risk of recidivism of up to eighty percent after undergoing aftercare treatment.[9]

Recidivism rates[edit]

As reported on BBC Radio 4 on 2 September 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the United States of America is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom. The report attributed the lower recidivism rate in the UK to a focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners compared with the US focus on punishment, deterrence and keeping potentially dangerous individuals away from society.

The United States Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.[10] Key findings include:

  • Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%) and those in prison for possessing, using or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
  • Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.
  • The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.

Former criminals rose to become some of America's greatest leaders in law, industry and politics. This possibility seems to be narrowing as criminal records become electronically stored and accessible.[11]

An accused's history of convictions are called antecedents, known colloquially as "previous" or "form" in the UK and "priors" in the United States and Australia.

There are organisations that help with the re-integration of ex-detainees into society by helping them obtain work, teaching them various societal skills, and by providing all-around support. One organization that works on meeting inmates at their point of entry (in jail) is JUST of DuPage in IL. Another organization that is currently based in New York City is the Exodus Transitional Community.

Studies[edit]

Minnesota Department of Corrections[edit]

Many studies have shown a correlation between prisoners attending rehabilitation programs while incarcerated and their likelihood of recidivism. Most have no significant results, although, some studies have shown a positive correlation. The findings that have shown significant results are normally boot camp experiments that have aftercare programs for at least four months.[citation needed]

The Minnesota Department of Corrections did a study on criminals who are in prison to see if rehabilitation during incarceration correlates with recidivism and/or saved the state money. They used the Minnesota’s Challenge Incarceration Program (CIP) which consisted of three phases. The first was a six month institutional phase followed by two aftercare phases, each lasting at least six months, for a total of about eighteen months. The first phase was the “boot camp” phase. Here inmates had daily schedules sixteen hours long where they participated in activities and showed discipline. Some activities in phase one included physical training, manual labor, skills training, drug therapy, and transition planning. The second and third phases were called “community phases.” In phase two the participants are on intensive supervised release (ISR). ISR includes being in contact with your supervisor on a daily basis, being a full-time employee, keeping curfew, passing random drug and alcohol tests, and doing community service while continuing to participate completely in the program. The final phase is phase three. During this phase one is still on ISR and has to remain in the community while maintaining a full-time job. They have to continue with community service and their participation in the program. Once phase three is complete participants have “graduated” CIP. They are then put on supervision until the end of their sentence. Inmates who drop out or fail to complete the program are sent back to prison to serve the rest of their sentence.

Information was gathered through a quasi experimental design. This compared the recidivism rates of the CIP participants with a control group. The findings of the study have shown that the CIP program did not significantly reduce the chances of recidivism. However CIP did increase the amount of time before rearrest. Moreover, CIP early release graduates lower the costs for the state by millions every year.[12]

Jefferson County, Kentucky[edit]

A study was done by Robert Stanz in Jefferson County, Kentucky which discussed an alternative to jail time. The alternative was "home incarceration" in which the defendant would complete his or her time at home instead of in jail. According to the study: "Results show that the majority of offenders do successfully complete the program, but that a majority are also re-arrested within 5 years of completion."[13] In doing this, they added to the rate of recidivism.

In doing a study on the results of this program, Stanz considered age, race, neighborhood, and several other aspects. Most of the defendants who fell under the recidivism category included those who were younger, those who were sentenced for multiple charges, those accruing fewer technical violations, males, and those of African-American descent.[13]

In contrast, a study published by the African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies in 2005 used data from the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections to examine 2,810 juvenile offenders who were released in the 1999/2000 fiscal year. The study built a socio-demographic of the offenders who were returned to the correctional system within a year of release. There was no significant difference between black offenders and white offenders. The study concluded that race does not play an important role in juvenile recidivism. The findings ran counter to conventional beliefs on the subject, which may not have controlled for other variables.[14]

Methadone Maintenance Therapy (MMT)[edit]

A study was conducted regarding the recidivism rate of inmates receiving MMT (Methadone Maintenance Therapy). This therapy is intended to wean heroin users from the drug by administering small doses of methadone, thereby avoiding withdrawal symptoms. 589 inmates who took part in MMT programs between November 22, 2005 and October 31, 2006 were observed after their release. Among these former inmates, "there was no statistically significant effect of receiving methadone in the jail or dosage on subsequent recidivism risks”.[15]

Statistics[edit]

United States Nationwide[edit]

It is estimated that the average American male who has the tendency to be arrested over women[vague] will be arrested twice by the age of 65, reducing male income to 18 cents of every household dollar spent, decreasing male income by over 50%. This also has the effect of reducing tax revenues. With up to 80% new unemployed being males their income will drop to 9 cents of every household dollar spent. The recidivism rate for prisoners released from prison within one year is 44.1%; this number rises to 67.5% within three years of being released from prison. Sixty-seven percent of the people who were rearrested were charged with 750,000 new crimes, which include property offenses, drug offenses, public-order offenses, other offenses, unknown, and over 100,000 of these crimes were violent crimes. Of the new violent crimes committed, 2,871 were murder and 2,444 were rape.[1] Male prisoners are exposed and subject to sexual and physical violence in prisons. Each year, as many as 70% of inmates in prisons are assaulted by another inmate. When these events occur, the victim usually suffers emotionally and/or physically. Studies suggest that this leads the inmate to accept these types of behaviors and value their lives and the lives of others less when they are released. These dehumanizing acts, combined with learned violent behavior, are implicated in higher recidivism rates.[16]

Rikers Island[edit]

The recidivism rate in the New York City jail system is as high as 65%. The jail at Rikers Island, in New York, is making efforts to reduce this statistic by teaching horticulture to its inmates. It is shown that the inmates that go through this type of rehabilitation have significantly lower rates of recidivism.[17] When a Rikers Island prisoner is released, having an arrest on their resume reduces a person's lifetime income by over 50% and two thirds when convicted.

Charts[edit]

Arizona[edit]

A study by the University of Nevada, Reno on recidivism rates across the United States showed that Arizona has the lowest rate of recidivism among offenders compared to all other U.S states at only 24.6 percent.[18]

California[edit]

7 out of 10 prisoners in California return to jail or prison within three years. This is the highest recidivism rate in the nation. In order to render this statistic, the prisoners will receive counseling, risk assessment, housing assistance, drug treatment and so on. Also, more health care is provided and available in the state for all inmates. This high recidivism rate contributes greatly to the overcrowding of jails and prisons in California.[19]

Connecticut[edit]

A study conducted in Connecticut followed 16,486 prisoners for a three-year period to see how many of them would end up going back to jail. Results from the study found that about 37% of offenders were rearrested for a new crime and sent to prison again within the first three years they were released. Of the 16,486 prisoners, about 56% of them were convicted of a new crime.[20]

Florida[edit]

In 2001, the Florida Department of Corrections created a graph showing the general recidivism rate of all offenders released from prison from July 1993 until six and a half years later. This graph shows that recidivism is much more likely within the first six months after they are released. The longer the offenders stayed out of prison, the less likely they were to return.[21]

Nevada[edit]

A study by the University of Nevada, Reno on recidivism rates across the United States showed that Nevada has one of the lowest rate of recidivism among offenders at only 29.2 percent.[18]

United States[edit]

Two studies were done to attempt to provide a “national” recidivism rate for the U.S. One was done in 1983 which included 108,580 State prisoners from 11 different states. The other study was done in 1994 on 272,111 prisoners from 15 states. Both studies represent two-thirds of the overall prisoners released in their corresponding years.[22]

This is an image which portrays the percent of parolees returning to prison in each state in 2006. This study was done by Matt Kelley. According to this study, in 2006, there was more recidivism in the southern states, particularly in the Midwestern region. However, for the majority, the data is spread out throughout the regions.[23]

Causes[edit]

It has long been suggested that corrections policies have ignored the difficulties faced by offenders who reenter society. For example, Drago et al. found that harsh prison conditions, including isolation tended it increase recidivism, though none of these effects were statistically significant.[24]

Various researchers also noted that prisoners are stripped of civil rights and are reluctantly absorbed into communities which further increases alienation and isolation. Other contributors to recidivism are the difficulties released offenders face in finding jobs, renting apartments or getting education. Owners of business will often refuse to hire a convicted felon and are at best hesitant, especially in any position that entails even minor responsibility or the handling of money (note that this includes most work), especially to those convicted of thievery, such as larceny, or drug addicts.[16] Many leasing corporations (those organisations and/or people who own and rent apartments) now routinely perform criminal background checks and disqualify ex-convicts. (However, especially in the inner city or in areas with high crime rates, leasors may not always apply their official policies in this regard. When they do, apartments may be rented by someone other than the occupant.)

People with criminal records report difficulty or the inability to find educational opportunities, and are often denied financial aid based on their records. In America, those found guilty of even a minor misdemeanor (in some states, a citation offense, such as a traffic ticket) or misdemeanour drug offence (for example, simple possession of marijuana or heroin, respectively) are disqualified from receiving all government-funded educational loans and financial aid.[citation needed]

Alternative policies[edit]

There are countless alternatives to consider as a means of ameliorating the problem of recidivism, but many involve a complete overhaul of the societal values concerning justice, punishment, and second chances. Others are not worth exploring due to obvious cost and resource issues and other constraints.

Three plausible alternatives will be considered in this analysis: (1) allowing current trends to continue without additional intervention (maintaining the status-quo); (2) increasing the presence and quality of pre-release services, within incarceration facilities, that address factors associated with drug-related criminality—addiction treatment and mental health counseling and education programs/vocational training; (3) increasing the presence and quality of community-based organizations that provide post-release/reentry services (in the same realm as those mentioned in option 2).

The current system is focused on the front end, consisting of arrest and incarceration, and largely ignores the tail-end (and preparation for the tail-end), which includes rehabilitation and re-entry into the community. In most correctional facilities, if planning for re-entry takes place at all, it only begins a few weeks or months before an inmate is released. “This process is often referred to as release planning or transition planning and its parameters may be largely limited to helping a person identify a place to stay upon release and, possibly, a source of income”[25]

Any programming that involves service provision for individuals convicted of crime will likely face significant pushback from constituents and special interest groups who take issue with providing “special treatment," such as mental health, rehabilitation and educational services, which so many needy law-abiding citizens don’t have access to. Many view this as privileges for people who are undeserving.[original research?]

Judge David Mason believes the Transcendental Meditation program is a successful tool for rehabilitation. Mason is one of five Missouri state and federal judges who have sentenced offenders to learn the Transcendental Meditation program as an anti-recidivism modality.[26]

Mental disorders[edit]

Mental health problems can contribute in some individuals to an increased risk of recommitting acts which may be judged as criminal offences, for example mental disorders involving certain types of psychosis or behavioral problems. Parole services and mental health courts may help to reduce this.[27][28]

Antisocial Personality Disorder is partly defined by a history of antisocial/criminal starting with conduct disorder in youth. Borderline Personality Disorder, also known in the ICD as Emotionally Unstable PD, may also relate to certain kinds of reoffending. Together and especially with substance misuse may increase the risk.[29]

A subset of ASPD, or a related category depending how the terms are defined, is widely known as psychopathy. Criminal recidivism has been found in some studies to be highly correlated with psychopathy.[30][31] The psychopath is defined by some as an uninhibited gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes.[30][31] Individuals with this disorder gain satisfaction through their antisocial behavior and lack remorse for their actions.[32] Psychopathic prisoners in one Canadian study had a 2.5 times higher probability of being released from jail, even though they are more likely to recidivate.[33] Punishment, behavior modification and therapy techniques may not improve the behavior of a psychopath.[34] Psychopaths may also have a markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of their actions, not only for others, but also for themselves. They do not, for example, deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their behaviour.[35] However, numerous studies and recent large scale meta-analysis cast serious doubt on claims made about the ability of psychopathy ratings to predict who will offend or respond to treatment.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Henslin, James. “Social Problems: A Down-To-Earth Approach.” (2008).
  2. ^ a b c d Visher, Christy A. 2003. “Transitions From Prison To Community: Understanding Individual Pathways”. The Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, District of Columbia Washington, 20037
  3. ^ Hughes, T. & D.J. Wilson. Reentry Trends in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2002. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/reentry.pdf
  4. ^ Guerino, Paul, Paige M. Harrison, and William J. Sabol. Prisoners in 2010. NCJ 236096. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p10.pdf
  5. ^ Hammett, T., C. Roberts, & S. Kennedy. "Health-Related Issues in Prisoner Reentry." Crime & Delinquency 47, no. 3 (2001): 390-409.
  6. ^ National Institute on Drug Abuse. Treating Offenders with Drug Problems: Integrating Public Health and Public Safety. Bethesda, MD: Author, 2009. www.drugabuse.gov pdf tib drugs_crime.pdf
  7. ^ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. Addiction and the Criminal Justice System, 2010.. http://report.nih.gov/NIHfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=22
  8. ^ The Council of State Governments. Reentry Policy Council. Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community, II-B-12-3. New York: Council of State Governments. January 2005. http://reentrypolicy.org/Report/PartII/ChapterII-B/PolicyStatement12/ResearchHighlight12-3 [edit] Recidivism rates
  9. ^ http://community.nicic.gov/blogs/mentalhealth/archive/2012/10/05/post-prison-treatment-reduces-recidivism-among-women-with-substance-use-problems.aspx
  10. ^ "Bureau of Justice Statistics Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994". Ojp.usdoj.gov. 2002-06-02. Retrieved 2009-09-14. 
  11. ^ Roger Roots, "When the Past is a Prison: The Hardening Plight of the American Ex-Convict," 1 Justice Policy Journal 3 (Fall 2004).
  12. ^ Duwe, G., & Kerschner, D. 2008. “Removing a Nail From the Coffin.” Crime & Delinquency, 54.
  13. ^ a b Stanz, Robert, 2000, “Predictors of Success and Recidivism in a Home Incarceration Program” Prison Journal, 80:326-345.
  14. ^ Jospeter M. Mbuba, Ph.D (November 2005). "A REFUTATION OF RACIAL DIFFERENTIALS IN THE JUVENILE RECIDIVISM RATE HYPOTHESIS". African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies 1 (2). ISSN 1554-3897. 
  15. ^ McMillan, Garnett P, 2008, “The effect of a jail methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) program on inmate recidivism”, Addiction, 103:2017-2023.
  16. ^ a b Bailey, Kristen. “The Causes of Recidivism in the Criminal Justice System and Why It Is Worth the Cost to Address Them.” Nashville Bar Journal. Dec 06/Jan 07. (April 21, 2009).
  17. ^ Jiler, James. “Doing Time in the Garden: Life Lessons Through Prison Horticulture.” New Village Press. 2006. (April 21, 2009).
  18. ^ a b By moblyw. "Study suggests Nevada prisons do pretty good job of preventing recidivism". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved 2009-09-14. 
  19. ^ "Strategic Growth Plan". Gov.ca.gov. Retrieved 2009-09-14. 
  20. ^ "OPM: Recidivisim Study". Ct.gov. 2009-01-06. Retrieved 2009-09-14. 
  21. ^ Florida Department of Corrections. "Recidivism Rate Curves - Recidivism Report (May 2001)". Dc.state.fl.us. Retrieved 2009-09-14. 
  22. ^ "Bureau of Justice Statistics Reentry Trends in the U.S.: Recidivism". Ojp.usdoj.gov. 2002-10-25. Retrieved 2009-09-14. [dead link]
  23. ^ Kelley, Matt. “Monday Map: Helping Parolees Rebuild.” March 09, 2009 <http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/monday_map_helping_parolees_rebuild>
  24. ^ Drago, Francesco; Galbiati, Roberto; Vertova, Pietro (February 1, 2011) [2011]. "Prison Conditions and Recidivism". American Law and Economics Review 13 (1): 103–130. Retrieved June 5, 2013. 
  25. ^ The Council of State Governments. Reentry Policy Council. Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community, xi. New York: Council of State Governments. January 2005. http://reentrypolicy.org/Report/About
  26. ^ https://www.au.org/church-state/may-2006-church-state/au-bulletin/missouri-sentences-convicts-to-transcendental
  27. ^ Am J Psychiatry. 2007 Sep;164(9):1395-403 Effectiveness of a mental health court in reducing criminal recidivism and violence. McNiel DE, Binder RL.
  28. ^ Exploring the Intersection of Mental Health and Release Status with Recidivism Michael Ostermann; Jason Matejkowski, Justice Quarterly; May 2012
  29. ^ Crim Behav Ment Health. 2013 Jul;23(3):191-202. doi: 10.1002/cbm.1852. Epub 2013 Jan 31. Re-offending in forensic patients released from secure care: The role of antisocial/borderline personality disorder co-morbidity, substance dependence and severe childhood conduct disorder. Howard R, McCarthy L, Huband N, Duggan C.
  30. ^ a b Jill S. Levenson, John W. Morin (2000) [Treating Nonoffending Parents in Child Sexual Abuse Cases] p. 7 SAGE, ISBN 0-7619-2192-3
  31. ^ a b Marvin Zuckerman (1991) Psychobiology of personality Cambridge University Press, p. 390. ISBN 0-521-35942-2
  32. ^ Hare, Robert D, Psychopaths: New Trends in Research. The Harvard Mental Health Letter, September 1995
  33. ^ Psychopaths' 'early release con' (9 February 2009)BBC News
  34. ^ Harris, Grant; Rice, Marnie (2006). "Treatment of psychopathy: A review of empirical findings". In Patrick, Christopher. Handbook of Psychopathy. pp. 555–572 
  35. ^ "Attention to the eyes and fear-recognition deficits in child psychopathy - Dadds et al. 189 (3): 280 - The British Journal of Psychiatry". Bjp.rcpsych.org. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.105.018150. Retrieved 2009-09-14. 
  36. ^ Psychol Bull. 2010 Sep;136(5):740-67. doi 10.1037/a0020473. The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Yang M, Wong SC, Coid J.
  37. ^ Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Apr;31(3):499-513. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009. Epub 2010 Dec 13. A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Singh JP, Grann M, Fazel S.
  38. ^ Violence risk meta-meta: Instrument choice does matter: Despite popularity, psychopathy test and actuarials not superior to other prediction methods Karen Franklin, Ph.D. forensic psychologist and adjunct professor, 2011
  39. ^ SVP risk tools show 'disappointing' reliability in real-world use Karen Franklin, Ph.D. forensic psychologist and adjunct professor, 2011
  40. ^ Inter-rater reliability of the PCL-R total and factor scores among psychopathic sex offenders: are personality features more prone to disagreement than behavioral features? John F. Edens, Marcus T. Boccaccini, Darryl W. Johnson (2010)
  41. ^ Authorship Bias in Violence Risk Assessment? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Jay P. Singh, Martin Grann, Seena Fazel (2013) PLoS ONE 8(9): e72484. doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0072484
  42. ^ Uses and Abuses of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist David Crighton, Evid Based Mental Health 2009;12:33-36 doi:10.1136/ebmh.12.2.33
  43. ^ Parole Board Members’ Views about Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder in England and Wales International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2012, 1, 141-150 Julie Trebilcock and Tim Weaver
  44. ^ The Trouble with Psychopathy as a General Theory of Crime Glenn D. Walters. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol April 2004 vol. 48 no. 2 133-148, doi 10.1177/0306624X03259472 PMID 15070462