Research shows that victimization rates in forensic mental health care are high for both female and male patients. However, gender differences have been found in types and patterns of victimization (more sexual abuse and more complex trauma for women), cognitive appraisal, and response to traumatic events. Gender-responsive treatments focusing on trauma have been designed to adhere to these gender differences; however, despite promising research results, these interventions are yet to be introduced in many settings. This study examined how trauma is addressed in current clinical practice in Dutch forensic mental health care, whether professionals are knowledgeable of gender differences in trauma, and how gender-responsive factors such as self-esteem, self-efficacy, social relations, and coping skills are considered in treatment for female patients. We used a mixed-method design consisting of an online survey and 33 semi-structured interviews with professionals and patients. The results suggested that Dutch forensic mental health care could address trauma more structurally, and professionals could be more aware of gender differences and gender-responsive factors. Early start of trauma treatment was deemed important but was not current practice according to patients. Based on this study, guidelines were developed for gender-responsive, trauma-informed work in forensic mental health care.
Are professionals better at assessing the evidential strength of different types of forensic conclusions compared to students? In an online questionnaire 96 crime investigation and law students, and 269 crime investigation and legal professionals assessed three fingerprint examination reports. All reports were similar, except for the conclusion part which was stated in a categorical (CAT), verbal likelihood ratio (VLR) or numerical likelihood ratio (NLR) conclusion with high or low evidential strength. The results showed no significant difference between the groups of students and professionals in their assessment of the conclusions. They all overestimated the strength of the strong CAT conclusion compared to the other conclusion types and underestimated the strength of the weak CAT conclusion. Their background (legal vs. crime investigation) did have a significant effect on their understanding. Whereas the legal professionals performed better compared to the crime investigators, the legal students performed worse compared to crime investigation students.
Victim-offender contact has been studied extensively in prisons, but research on contact between victims and mentally disordered offenders in forensic mental health settings is lacking. Therefore, an exploratory study was conducted on contact between victims and offenders in four Dutch forensic psychiatric hospitals. These offenders have committed serious (sexually) violent offenses, for which they could not be held fully responsible due to severe psychopathology. During the mandatory treatment, it is possible for offenders and their victims to engage in contact with each other if both parties agree to this. To explore the conditions under which this contact is suitable, we interviewed 35 social workers about their experiences in 57 cases from four Dutch forensic psychiatric hospitals. Findings demonstrated that, according to the social workers, no type of offense or psychopathology were obvious exclusion criteria for victim-offender contact. Social workers described offenders' problem awareness, stable psychiatric condition, and ability to keep to agreements as important factors that enable victim-offender contact. Implications and suggestions for future research are provided.
