Using Structured Professional Judgment Guidelines in Threat Assessment and Management: Presentation, Analysis, and Formulation of a Case of Serial Intimate Partner Violence

Using Structured Professional Judgment Guidelines in Threat Assessment and Management: Presentation, Analysis, and Formulation of a Case of Serial Intimate Partner Violence

Using Structured Professional Judgment Guidelines in Threat Assessment and Management: Presentation, Analysis, and Formulation of a Case of Serial Intimate Partner Violence

Using Structured Professional Judgment Guidelines in Threat Assessment and Management: Presentation, Analysis, and Formulation of a Case of Serial Intimate Partner Violences

| Ajouter

Référence bibliographique [12665]

Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, vol. 1, no 2, p. 67-86.

Fiche synthèse

1. Objectifs


Intentions :
«In this paper, we present the case of a Canadian man who perpetrated serial IPV [intimate partner violence] that included incidents of severe physical violence and stalking against female victims […]. The case presentation is followed by a case analysis and formulation using B-SAFER [Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk] and SAM [Stalking Assessment and Management]. Our goal is to illustrate how threat assessment professionals can use SPJ [structured professional judgment] guidelines in complex, high-risk cases.» (p. 68)

2. Méthode


Échantillon/Matériau :
«The case concerns a Canadian man named Jean-Guy Tremblay.» (p. 68)

Instruments :
- Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk
- Stalking Assessment and Management

Type de traitement des données :
Réflexion critique

3. Résumé


«Some more general points about threat assessment and management may also be apparent. One is that structured approaches to threat assessment and management can be important even in cases that are quite obviously ‘high risk’—that is, a case like that of Tremblay, where most people would intuitively have serious concerns about the potential for further violence. Structured approaches go beyond formation of opinions about risk level (i.e., ‘How likely is it that the person will perpetrate violence?’ or ‘How concerned should I be about the person’s potential for violence?’) to formation of opinions about the nature, severity, and imminence of risk (i.e., ‘What forms of violence might this person perpetrate, and why, against whom, where, and when?’) as well as opinions about the most appropriate steps to mitigate risk (i.e., ‘What should I do to prevent violence and protect people’s safety?’). Another point is the importance of trying to understand the complexity of risk factors. The SPJ guidelines used to analyze the case focus evaluators on core risk factors that should be considered in every case, as systematic review of the literature suggests they are important on average.» (p. 83-84)