Assessing violence risk with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders: considerations for forensic practice

Abstract

Forensic professionals and courts have frequently expressed concern about the susceptibility of contemporary risk assessment tools to cultural bias. Furthermore, progress in the development of valid methods of assessment for offenders who identify from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural backgrounds has been slow. This paper considers how cultural perspectives on risk are essential to the development of assessment methods that have greater validity and acceptance by both courts and the community. This will involve considering the social, cultural and political determinants of risk in each cultural group and the identification of those risk factors that are most relevant to forensic decision-making.

Life as an Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Male Prisoner: Poems of Grief, Trauma, Hope, and Resistance

“…Pride in their cultural identity supersedes a criminal justice system that reduces their humanity to that of a racialized group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners. This acquired racialized and criminogenic identity becomes ingrained in the justice system's treatment of the men, ultimately manifesting as cultural bias when actuarial risk assessment tools are administered to predict any future occurrence of reoffending (Day et al 2018). Risk assessment tools do not examine and include "the potentially important social, contextual and cultural factors that impact on risk, response to services, and reintegration" (Day et al 2018, 455).…”

Associations Between Parole Outcomes and Characteristics of People Under Supervision, Supervising Officer, and Supervising Office

“…One potentially important characteristic that has received less attention is the cultural background of the person receiving supervision. In settler-colonial societies, such as Australia, Indigenous 1 peoples are massively overrepresented relative to their presence in the wider community across all levels of the criminal justice system (Day et al, 2018). There is widespread acknowledgment that barriers may exist to forming effective supervisory relationships, both systemic and cultural.…”

Finding Colour in Conformity Part II—Reflections on Structured Professional Judgement and Cross-Cultural Risk Assessment

“…Over the past decade, there has been an increasing interest in cross-cultural risk assessment. Much of this has been driven by concerns that particular instruments (i.e., actuarial risk instruments) may biased against, or ill-suited to, non-White offending populations (Day et al., 2018; Hart, 2016; Shepherd & Lewis-Fernandez, 2016). Several recent occurrences propelled this movement including (a) U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder criticising actuarial risk instruments for artificially elevating the risk levels of disadvantaged minority groups, (b) the Ewert V Canada hearings (2015–2018) which considered whether a number of actuarial risk instruments (which ostensibly had not demonstrated utility with Indigenous offenders) were violating the human rights of a Metis prisoner (Haag et al., 2016), and (c) high profile mainstream writing underscoring the harmful real-life effects actuarial risk instruments bestow on minority groups (i.e., African-Americans, Angwin et al., 2016).…”

“…Several recent occurrences propelled this movement including (a) U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder criticising actuarial risk instruments for artificially elevating the risk levels of disadvantaged minority groups, (b) the Ewert V Canada hearings (2015–2018) which considered whether a number of actuarial risk instruments (which ostensibly had not demonstrated utility with Indigenous offenders) were violating the human rights of a Metis prisoner (Haag et al., 2016), and (c) high profile mainstream writing underscoring the harmful real-life effects actuarial risk instruments bestow on minority groups (i.e., African-Americans, Angwin et al., 2016). There were additional concerns that risk instruments (both SPJ and actuarial) do not encompass the culturally unique information (i.e., norms, beliefs, practices, and experiences of discrimination) of non-White populations, and therefore render risk assessment less relevant, and/or possibly less accurate, for individuals from these groups (Day et al., 2018; Shepherd & Lewis-Fernandez, 2016). Collectively, this material is of importance to the field of forensic risk assessment for a number of reasons.…”