This chapter applies the theory of symbolic interactionism to present the qualitative analysis of 51 sentencing decisions in domestic violence homicide cases processed in Polish courts. It is argued in this chapter that sentencing, like any other human action, is subject to interpretations at the hands of judges, who engage in the construction and meaning-making process of gender at the sentencing stage. The findings demonstrate the diversely-constructed presence of gendered narratives, which vary in terms of their inclusion of the domestic violence terminology and/or the discussion on the fulfilment of socially-prescribed gender roles. The analysis has exposed a powerful interplay between the judges’ perception of the (abusive) relationship, gender roles, and the defendant’s/victim’s acquiescence to them, which in consequence makes women more likely the subject of double standards of conformity. The chapter offers a qualitative outlook on the topic and invites a new theoretical perspective to shift the attention from the impact of gender – to the meaning of gender – in sentencing decisions.
MULTIFILE
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.
DOCUMENT
This study explores variables that predict physical violence in 614 (forensic) psychiatric inpatients. All violent incidents that occurred in a Dutch forensic psychiatric hospital between 2014 and 2019 (N = 3,713) were coded with the Modified Overt Aggression Scale+ based on daily hospital reports and patients’ medical records. Binary logistic regression analyses examined which patient variables could differentiate between patients with and without physical violence during treatment and between patients with single and multiple incidents of physical violence. Variables included in the analyses were gender, legal status, borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorder, psychopathy (Psychopathy Checklist–Revised [PCL-R] score), self-harm during treatment, impulsivity, intellectual disability, and length of stay. A clear association was found between self-harm and inpatient physical violence on all outcome measures and in all analyses. Adequate monitoring of self-harm is advised as a strategy to early identify patients with a high risk to threaten ward safety.
MULTIFILE
