Editorial

Citation

Ireland, C.A. and Gredecki, N. (2012), "Editorial", The British Journal of Forensic Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/bjfp.2012.54314daa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: The British Journal of Forensic Practice, Volume 14, Issue 4

Welcome to the final issue of 2012. It has again been an exciting year for the journal and we have published papers covering a range of important topics relating to forensic practice and which reflect the variety of work and research conducted in the forensic field. Within this issue, the papers focus on assessment and intervention and we start with an invited paper by Elaine Pressman and John Flockton which focuses on the risk assessment of violent political extremists and terrorists. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the current knowledge based on risk assessment and risk assessment methodology with a focus on relevance to individual terrorists and violent extremists. It is argued that risk assessments with this population should be undertaken with risk indicators that are relevant to ideological-motivated violence and that indicators used for “ordinary common violence” differ in substantive ways from those relevant to terrorists and therefore may have questionable relevance for the assessment of risk in terrorists.

The paper provides a model of risk assessment which assists in the identification of pertinent risk indicators to the given population and the VERA 2 is outlined using risk indicators that differ in substantive ways from those used for other “ordinary violent criminals”. The paper has practical utility in presenting a tool that can assist practitioners and law enforcement agencies to direct their focus on evidence-based risk dimensions. The authors also consider the ethical complexities and empirical difficulties related to the application of risk indicators to those who have not offended.

The next paper by Helen Walker, Lindsay Tulloch and Colin Martin provides a review of quality of life (QOL) instruments for use with mentally disordered offenders with a diagnosis of psychosis. It provides a detailed review of QOL measures, concluding that some measures developed for community programmes are perhaps less likely to be sensitive to QOL changes apparent in the forensic population. Whilst it is suggested that many of the existing QOL tools do not acknowledge the limitations and restrictions imposed upon forensic patients, it is hopeful that the authors suggest that with some minor adjustments, a number of the tools could be adapted for a better fit.

Following on with the theme of assessment, Nicholas Blagden and colleagues provide an interesting case study using repertory grids with a sexual offender. Whilst the authors acknowledge the limitations to the generalisation of the findings, the paper provides an alternative methodology for working with clients who deny their offending. This has potential implications for both assessment and psychological formulation. The authors argue that in this case, the methodology adopted with the client appeared to elicit factors that were of clinical utility and which could be used as tentative hypotheses for problem formulation and which also seemed to point to an adequate starting point for intervention. This is an important area of work given that those clients who deny their offences are often excluded from treatment. The paper argues that constructive work can be done with this population with repertory grids being one way to initially facilitate this process.

The next paper by Rajan Nathan and colleagues reflects on the raised profile of personality disorder in forensic clinical practice. They bring together the areas of assessment and intervention through their reflections on a number of the lessons learnt from the development of one specialist service for personality-disordered offenders. This paper provides a useful reference point in regards to the development of personality disorder services in terms of reflecting on the experience gained in the first four years of developing a service. The authors suggest that in their view, a systematic and formalised model of “understanding” the psychology of the individual should be the core process of future developments for this group of offenders.

The remaining papers focus on intervention and this starts with a publication by Lauren Breese and colleagues. The paper presents an audit investigating whether a “stress control” intervention which successfully reduces stress and anxiety in a primary care community setting, is beneficial when applied to a category C prison population. Despite the small sample size, participants’ anxiety significantly decreased and their wellbeing increased after completing “stress control” and it was concluded that the adapted materials were both effective and appropriate for use in a custodial setting. The authors suggest the need for a large-scale randomised controlled trial to further test effectiveness and to thus provide improved access to psychological therapy for a prison population that is cost effective, appropriate to the custodial setting and evidence based.

The final paper Jon Taylor and Catrin Morrissey focuses on integrating treatment for forensic clients with an intellectual disability and personality disorder. A treatment model is presented which integrates adapted cognitive behavioural programmes with a social milieu approach, arguing that this treatment model addresses the criminogenic, psychological and social needs of those with personality disorder and intellectual disability. In terms of practical implications, it is proposed that services being developed for people with both intellectual disability and personality disorder should take account of the literature on the treatment of mainstream personality disorder when developing treatment models.

Carol A. Ireland, Neil Gredecki