ZaZara
AstraZaZara
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 8,473
- Reaction score
- 18,304
https://www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/-h...hash=ea78b1c077a3eba3da786c4b715d3242127cebd9
'High risk of recidivism must be the basis for TBS' [ Criminal Insanity Treatment ]
'The thought that people are dangerous because they have a disorder and that, if you resolve that disorder, they are no longer dangerous, has turned out to be a misconception,' according to psychologist and researcher at The Forensic Care Specialists, Wineke Smid.
The big question in the Anne Faber case is why suspect Michael P. was not sentenced to TBS in 2010. Former president of the Supreme Court, Geert Corstens, said in Buitenhof television programme on Sunday that the judge can only impose TBS if there is a mental disorder that is at the root of the offence.
If the accused refuses to cooperate with a psychiatric examination and there are no facts to suggest such a disorder, the judge cannot impose TBS. The judge has only recently gained the possibility to use minimal information, but that minimal information must be there.
Psychologist and researcher at the Forensic Care Specialists Wineke Smid, who graduated in 2014 on the risk assessment of sex offenders, said in Buitenhof that the core of the problem is the 1911 law. The underlying idea is that people are dangerous because they have a disorder and that, if you correct it, they are no longer dangerous. That thought, says Smid, has proved to be a misconception over the last hundred years. According to her 'the disorder doesn't matter that much' and the recidivism factors are much more important.
A surprising statement:' The offender's disorder doesn't matter that much'
Maybe I have been somewhat exagerating. Someone who is psychotic can try to kill someone out of that disorder. But that does not mean, however, that the recidivism risk is also high. Many people think that if you don't cure someone for his disorder, the risk of recidivism also remains high. That is not true.
There are risk factors that can also be the symptom of a disorder. For example, impulsiveness is a risk factor, but also a symptom of a number of disorders. If you have already measured that impulsiveness with your risk assessment, it doesn't matter if you have measured it as part of a personality disorder, for example.
We have two types of instruments. The first consists of easily scored facts for which the cooperation of the defendant is not necessary. These are already making very good predictions. You can refine this with' dynamic risk factors'. For that you need a little more cooperation. Such a dynamic factor is, for example, the total disinterest in the well-being of others, psychopathy. Moreover, people with a high degree of psychopathy usually also score on other factors. The dynamic factors are needed to see exactly where you need to focus the treatment.
If the disorder doesn't matter so much, why should you impose TBS? What exactly are you treating then?
In the treatment practice, we have had the motto for a long time: 'No cure but control'. We are not so much concerned with curing disorders as we are with reducing risk factors. In the treatment we do take disorders into account. For a person who is poorly gifted, a psychodynamic talk therapy makes little sense, because he doesn't understand that much.
The treatment of risk factors usually comes down to teaching people to behave differently. A paedophile offender cannot be healed from his paedophilia, but you can teach him to behave differently'.
You also said in Buitenhof that for most sex offenders punishments help very well.
That is always considered a surprise. People think that punishments do not help. But most sex offenders do not have such a high risk of relapse. They think: this won't happen to me again. They have had enough punishment. Someone who says that he is proud of his rapes is a very rare exception. Most people don't really like what they have done. But there are also sex offenders who are particularly prone to recidivism. They should be treated.'
You argue that the penalty should be imposed taking into account the risk of recidivism and imposing TBS in the event of a high risk. Does the law need to be changed for that?
That is the easiest thing. However, it is also true that those who report to the judicial authorities are far from using all the available space allowed under current law. The author of the report should not be too quick in saying that no report can be made. For example, the law does not state at all that the suspect must cooperate with the diagnosis.
It is also objectionable that the offence for which the accused is now being charged should not be included in the report. You cannot say: this crime is so bizarre, anyone who has done so must be disturbed. This is particularly problematic in the case of young' first offenders' who have a high risk profile on the basis of their first offence, but with whom there is no way forward if the first offence cannot be included in determining a disorder. This should not be allowed because, if the defendant were acquitted, the reporting still continues to be valid.
The problem lies in the fact that the court wants to establish both the accused's guilt and the need for treatment in one single judgment. One solution may be to keep those things apart. The assessment of disorder and risk profile is placed in a closed envelope that is only opened when the accused has been declared guilty.
BBM
Read this well:
The judge: I cannot impose TBS if the defendant refuses to cooperate.
The forensic psychologist: the law does not state at all that the suspect must cooperate with the diagnosis.
They can't be both right, can they?
'High risk of recidivism must be the basis for TBS' [ Criminal Insanity Treatment ]
'The thought that people are dangerous because they have a disorder and that, if you resolve that disorder, they are no longer dangerous, has turned out to be a misconception,' according to psychologist and researcher at The Forensic Care Specialists, Wineke Smid.
The big question in the Anne Faber case is why suspect Michael P. was not sentenced to TBS in 2010. Former president of the Supreme Court, Geert Corstens, said in Buitenhof television programme on Sunday that the judge can only impose TBS if there is a mental disorder that is at the root of the offence.
If the accused refuses to cooperate with a psychiatric examination and there are no facts to suggest such a disorder, the judge cannot impose TBS. The judge has only recently gained the possibility to use minimal information, but that minimal information must be there.
Psychologist and researcher at the Forensic Care Specialists Wineke Smid, who graduated in 2014 on the risk assessment of sex offenders, said in Buitenhof that the core of the problem is the 1911 law. The underlying idea is that people are dangerous because they have a disorder and that, if you correct it, they are no longer dangerous. That thought, says Smid, has proved to be a misconception over the last hundred years. According to her 'the disorder doesn't matter that much' and the recidivism factors are much more important.
A surprising statement:' The offender's disorder doesn't matter that much'
Maybe I have been somewhat exagerating. Someone who is psychotic can try to kill someone out of that disorder. But that does not mean, however, that the recidivism risk is also high. Many people think that if you don't cure someone for his disorder, the risk of recidivism also remains high. That is not true.
There are risk factors that can also be the symptom of a disorder. For example, impulsiveness is a risk factor, but also a symptom of a number of disorders. If you have already measured that impulsiveness with your risk assessment, it doesn't matter if you have measured it as part of a personality disorder, for example.
We have two types of instruments. The first consists of easily scored facts for which the cooperation of the defendant is not necessary. These are already making very good predictions. You can refine this with' dynamic risk factors'. For that you need a little more cooperation. Such a dynamic factor is, for example, the total disinterest in the well-being of others, psychopathy. Moreover, people with a high degree of psychopathy usually also score on other factors. The dynamic factors are needed to see exactly where you need to focus the treatment.
If the disorder doesn't matter so much, why should you impose TBS? What exactly are you treating then?
In the treatment practice, we have had the motto for a long time: 'No cure but control'. We are not so much concerned with curing disorders as we are with reducing risk factors. In the treatment we do take disorders into account. For a person who is poorly gifted, a psychodynamic talk therapy makes little sense, because he doesn't understand that much.
The treatment of risk factors usually comes down to teaching people to behave differently. A paedophile offender cannot be healed from his paedophilia, but you can teach him to behave differently'.
You also said in Buitenhof that for most sex offenders punishments help very well.
That is always considered a surprise. People think that punishments do not help. But most sex offenders do not have such a high risk of relapse. They think: this won't happen to me again. They have had enough punishment. Someone who says that he is proud of his rapes is a very rare exception. Most people don't really like what they have done. But there are also sex offenders who are particularly prone to recidivism. They should be treated.'
You argue that the penalty should be imposed taking into account the risk of recidivism and imposing TBS in the event of a high risk. Does the law need to be changed for that?
That is the easiest thing. However, it is also true that those who report to the judicial authorities are far from using all the available space allowed under current law. The author of the report should not be too quick in saying that no report can be made. For example, the law does not state at all that the suspect must cooperate with the diagnosis.
It is also objectionable that the offence for which the accused is now being charged should not be included in the report. You cannot say: this crime is so bizarre, anyone who has done so must be disturbed. This is particularly problematic in the case of young' first offenders' who have a high risk profile on the basis of their first offence, but with whom there is no way forward if the first offence cannot be included in determining a disorder. This should not be allowed because, if the defendant were acquitted, the reporting still continues to be valid.
The problem lies in the fact that the court wants to establish both the accused's guilt and the need for treatment in one single judgment. One solution may be to keep those things apart. The assessment of disorder and risk profile is placed in a closed envelope that is only opened when the accused has been declared guilty.
BBM
Read this well:
The judge: I cannot impose TBS if the defendant refuses to cooperate.
The forensic psychologist: the law does not state at all that the suspect must cooperate with the diagnosis.
They can't be both right, can they?
I would genuinely like to know for the sake of interest, however.
