Uitspraak van het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens, met noot.
The HCR-20V3 is a violence risk assessment tool that is widely used in forensic clinical practice for risk management planning. The predictive value of the tool, when used in court for legal decisionmaking, is not yet intensively been studied and questions about legal admissibility may arise. This article aims to provide legal and mental health practitioners with an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the HCR-20V3 when applied in legal settings. The HCR-20V3 is described and discussed with respect to its psychometric properties for different groups and settings. Issues involving legal admissibility and potential biases when conducting violence risk assessments with the HCR-20V3 are outlined. To explore legal admissibility challenges with respect to the HCR-20V3, we searched case law databases since 2013 from Australia, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. In total, we found 546 cases referring to the HCR-20/HCR-20V3. In these cases, the tool was rarely challenged (4.03%), and when challenged, it never resulted in a court decision that the risk assessment was inadmissible. Finally, we provide recommendations for legal practitioners for the cross-examination of risk assessments and recommendations for mental health professionals who conduct risk assessments and report to the court. We conclude with suggestions for future research with the HCR-20V3 to strengthen the evidence base for use of the instrument in legal contexts.
French/English abstract: Les systèmes d’aide à la prise de décision jouent un rôle important dans la pratique juridique aux Pays-Bas. Divers organismes gouvernementaux utilisent de tels systèmes automatisés pour la prise de décisions juridiques (de masse). Les départements juridiques, les cabinets d’avocats, les éditeurs juridiques et d’autres organismes ont de plus en plus recours à ces outils pour appuyer et améliorer les services d’aide juridique aux particuliers et aux entreprises. Ces outils permettent d’améliorer l’efficacité des processus et des services juridiques, mais ils peuvent aussi avoir d’importants effets préjudiciables sur les droits des personnes ou sur la qualité juridique des services produits, en particulier lorsqu’il n’existe pas de processus de conception minutieux et transparent. Cet article donne un aperçu de l’utilisation de ces systèmes dans la pratique juridique néerlandaise, discute de leurs avantages, pièges et défis, puis il identifie certaines questions de recherche pour le futur.---Rule-based systems for decision support and decision-making play an important role in Dutch legal practice. Government agencies use rule-based systems for (mass) legal decision-making. Legal departments, law firms, legal publishers and various other organizations increasingly use rule-basedsystems to support and improve the provision of legal aid to private individuals and corporate clients. Rule-based systems can improve efficiency of legal processes and services, but can also have important detrimental effects on the rights of individuals or legal quality, especially when there is no careful and transparent design process. This article provides an overview of the use of these systems in Dutch legal practice, discusses benefits, pitfallsand challenges and identifies questions for future research.
