Skeem Jennifer L, Winter Eliza, Kennealy Patrick J, Louden Jennifer Eno, Tatar Joseph R
School of Social Welfare.
Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University.
Law Hum Behav. 2014 Jun;38(3):212-24. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000054. Epub 2013 Dec 30.
Many programs for offenders with mental illness (OMIs) seem to assume that serious mental illness directly causes criminal justice involvement. To help evaluate this assumption, we assessed a matched sample of 221 parolees with and without mental illness and then followed them for over 1 year to track recidivism. First, compared with their relatively healthy counterparts, OMIs were equally likely to be rearrested, but were more likely to return to prison custody. Second, beyond risk factors unique to mental illness (e.g., acute symptoms; operationalized with part of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997), OMIs also had significantly more general risk factors for recidivism (e.g., antisocial pattern; operationalized with the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004) than offenders without mental illness. Third, these general risk factors significantly predicted recidivism, with no incremental utility added by risk factors unique to mental illness. Implications for broadening the policy model to explicitly target general risk factors for recidivism such as antisocial traits are discussed.
许多针对患有精神疾病的罪犯（OMIs）的项目似乎都假定严重精神疾病直接导致了刑事司法介入。为了帮助评估这一假设，我们对221名有精神疾病和无精神疾病的假释人员进行了匹配抽样，然后对他们进行了一年多的跟踪以追踪再犯情况。首先，与相对健康的同龄人相比，患有精神疾病的罪犯被再次逮捕的可能性相同，但更有可能回到监狱监禁。其次，除了精神疾病特有的风险因素（例如，急性症状；用《历史-临床-风险管理-20》的一部分进行操作化；韦伯斯特、道格拉斯、伊夫斯和哈特，1997年）之外，患有精神疾病的罪犯比没有精神疾病的罪犯具有显著更多的再犯一般风险因素（例如，反社会模式；用《服务水平/案件管理量表》进行操作化；安德鲁斯、邦塔和沃米斯，2004年）。第三，这些一般风险因素显著预测了再犯情况，精神疾病特有的风险因素没有增加额外的效用。本文讨论了扩大政策模型以明确针对再犯的一般风险因素（如反社会特征）的意义。
