At present, Jay is an adult male, reported to be in his twenties (Tully, 2019). Jay grew up with his biological parents and three sisters and reports that he did not experience any abuse within the home (Tully, 2019). Jay reports feeling that his sisters sometimes received more attention than him and at one time he took his parent’s medication to gain attention (Tully, 2019). Jay’s mom was diagnosed with epilepsy and his father was her primary caretaker which impeded their ability to work ad so they relied on state benefits (Tully, 2019). Jay reports having a difficult time learning in school and experienced bullying to the degree of physical assault (Tully, 2019). Jay left high-school at age 16 after receiving several qualifications in technology, from there he attended college for three years (Tully, 2019). After college, Jay worked at a call-center for seven months and volunteered at a charity shop for five years (Tully, 2019). Jay reports having his first relationship with an 18-year-old female when he was 19-years-old (Tully, 2019). The relationship ended after about three years due to alleged violence towards Jay (Tully, 2019). After this, he moved back with his parent’s for about six months before moving to his own place, and he reports staying single for around five years (Tully, 2019). Jay reports entering into a long-distance relationship with an adult female who he would meet every couple of months for sex (Tully, 2019). Jay had not spoke to the woman since his arrest and assumes the relationship is over (Tully, 2019). Records show no indication of mental health or substance abuse issues (Tully, 2019). Jay denies having accessed indecent photos of children, although does report that he looked up a picture of a naked woman wearing a diaper which he used while masturbating about once per week (Tully, 2019). Jay connected with a person online who was claiming to be a 12-year-old female but was actually a vigilante group that claims to hunt sexual predators (Tully, 2019). Over a four-day period, Jay was alleged to have groomed and then enticed the girl to meet him and engage in sexual acts, including intercourse (Tully, 2019). Jay is awaiting sentencing and the Judge has asked an expert psychologist to complete assessments related to Jay’s possible sexual deviance (Tully, 2019).
What Role did the Psychologist Play in Selecting the Risk Assessment used in this Case?According to Tully (2019), when assessing sex offenders, structured risk assessments perform better than unstructured clinical judgement and the use of both actuarial measures as well as structured professional judgement risk assessments. Tully (2019), explains that the combination of these two approaches benefits the professional’s ability to formulate risk, develop plans for treatment, and reduce the risk of sexual reoffending (p.25).
Characteristics of the Assessment that make it Effective for this Case
In this case, several assessments were used to evaluate Jay and provide recommendations. Psychometric assessments including the response style assessment, the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Rosenberg measure, and the Social-Problem-Solving-Inventory-Revised. The results of these assessments were taken into consideration as part of the risk assessment (Tully, 2019). Psychometric tests to examine all attitudes and difficulties that are related to sexual offending are not available (Tully, 2019), therefore, additional assessments are needed to identify potential risk of offending.
The Risk Matrix 2000 is useful for assessing the risk of sexual reconviction by comparing the individual to groups of sex offenders through consideration of various static factors (Tully, 2019). Because the Risk Matrix “relies on number of sentencing appearances,” this assessment was provisionally applied to Jay’s case due to him having only had one sentencing appearance (Tully, 2019, p.30). Although the Risk Matrix 2000 “offers a useful filter” for identifying offenders who might need more treatment, it is difficult to apply the Risk Matrix 2000 statistics at the individual level (Tully, 2019, p.31).
The Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) is the most widely used tool for risk assessment of sex offenders (Tully, 2019). The RSVP can be effective in Jay’s case because it is not a predictor of sexual violence but a way to identify relevant risk factors, develop a formulation for the offender’s sexual violence, and establish risk management plans (Tully, 2019). According to Sutherland et al. (2012), the RSVP has an overall good interrater reliability when used by professional who are trained specifically in forensic risk assessment. Tully (2019), states that this tool is generally considered to be a “valid and useful way of assessing risk at an individual level” (p.32).
Selected Assessment Tool and its Impact the Outcome of the Case
Sex crimes against children are possibly the most disturbing and of the cases reported, have a high rate of occurrence (Bartol & Bartol, 2021). The assessment tools in this case are imperative for identifying the potential for reoffending and developing the most effective treatment plan to support Jay. According to Bartol & Bartol (2021), recidivism is frequently studies and is one of the most important aspects of sex offending. The comprehensive use of assessment tools is imperative to understanding risk of reoffending and is the primary reason for assessing offenders (Bartol & Bartol, 2021). The outcome of Jay’s sentencing, therefore, will be guided by the formulation developed by the assessing psychologist.