This exploratory study examined the motivations for forensic clients' engagement in critical incidents

This study explored individual factors associated with critical incidents that required professional intervention. Critical incidents were defined as holding someone against their will (i.e., hostage-taking), rooftop demonstrations and isolating oneself from others (i.e., barricades). Participants were from a high secure psychiatric hospital. All had a known history of having engaged in critical incidents. They were compared with a matched sample from the same hospital with no such history. Thirty-four patients were recruited, 16 in the study group and 18 in the comparison group. Extraversion, agreeableness and an impulsive/ careless problem-solving style were noted in those who perpetrated critical incidents. Personality and problem solving were variables distinguishing the perpetrators of critical incidents. Future research exploring in more detail the individual factors associated with involvement in critical incidents is suggested.

This article explores the introduction of the 2014 Protected Disclosures Act in the Republic of Ireland. It does so by using a justice theory lens to examine the potential for the Act to protect workers who may feel the need to blow the whistle on employer wrongdoings. Data is collected from public records and documents, along with interviews with senior representatives from ‘all’ the social partner agents involved in drafting or contributing to the Act. The evidence suggests that the Act may have limited utility in ensuring fairness and justice for the whistle-blower. In particular, employers appear reluctant to embrace the idea of more legal protections, while cultural stigmas attached to the idea of ‘blowing the whistle’ may inhibit people coming forward. The article contributes to justice theory and employment regulation, as well as whistle-blowing practices, and some recommendations are suggested to improve awareness of whistle-blowing rights for workers.