No abstract

The Reactive Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ) was originally developed to assess reactive and proactive aggressive behavior in children. Nevertheless, some studies have used the RPQ in adults. This study examines the reliability of the RPQ within an adult sample by investigating whether reactive and proactive aggression can be distinguished at a variable-and person-based level. Male adults from forensic samples (N ¼ 237) and from the general population (N ¼ 278) completed the RPQ questionnaire. Variable-based approaches, including factor analyses, were conducted to verify the two-factor model of the RPQ and to examine alternative factor solutions of the 23 items. Subsequently, a person-based approach, i.e., Latent Class Analysis (LCA), was executed to identify homogeneous classes of subjects with similar profiles of aggression in the observed data. The RPQ proved to have sufficient internal consistency. Multiple-factor models were examined, but the original two-factor model was statistically and theoretically considered as most solid and in line with previous research. The multi-level LCA identified three different classes of aggression severity (class 1 showed low aggressive behavior; class 2 subjects displayed modest aggression levels; and class 3 exhibited the highest level of aggressive behavior). In addition, class 1 and 2 showed more reactive than proactive aggression, whereas class 3 displayed comparable levels of reactive/proactive aggression. The RPQ appears to have clinical relevance for adult populations in the way that it can distinguish severity levels of aggression. Before the RPQ is implemented in adult populations, norm scores need to be developed. Aggr. Behav. 43:155-162, 2017.

No abstract

In this contribution an empirical approach is used to gain more insight into the relationship between neuroscience and criminal law. The focus is on case law in the Netherlands. Neuroscientific information and techniques have found their way into the courts of the Netherlands. Furthermore, following an Italian case in which a mentally ill offender received a penalty reduction in part because of a ‘genetic vulnerability for impulsive aggression’, the expectation was expressed that such ‘genetic defenses’ would appear in the Netherlands too. To assess how neuroscientific and behavioral genetic information are used in criminal justice practice in the Netherlands, we systematically collect Dutch criminal cases in which neuroscientific or behavioral genetic information is introduced. Data and case law examples are presented and discussed. Although cases are diverse, several themes appear, such as prefrontal brain damage in relation to criminal responsibility and recidivism risk, and divergent views of the implications of neurobiological knowledge about addiction for judging criminal responsibility. Whereas in the international ‘neurolaw literature’ the emphasis is often on imaging techniques, the Dutch findings also illustrate the role of neuropsychological methods in criminal cases. Finally, there appears to be a clear need of practice oriented instruments and guidelines.