Profile of partner aggressors as a function of risk of recidivism

Abstract

Partner aggressors present psychopathological, criminal, and sociodemographic characteristics that have been used for classification in typologies. The goal of the present work was to identify profile of aggressors as a function of the risk of recidivism, and assess whether there correspondence with type of offenders proposed by Holtzworth–Munroe and Stuart. The sample was made up of 90 men condemned for partner violence, of whom 50 were serving a prison sentence, and 40 mandatory community intervention/programs. The risk of recidivism was assessed with the SARA - Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide, completed with information obtained from prison records, clinical interviews for the assessment of personality disorders, and self-reports. The results reveal three profile of aggressors according to their risk of recidivism, related to the above-mentioned classification: high-risk aggressors coincide with the Dysphoric/Borderline (DB) type, medium-risk aggressors with the low-level antisocial type (LLA), and the low-risk group with the type of aggressors family only (FO). The implications are discussed in the penitentiary intervention of these results.

Taxonomía de los Homicidios de Mujeres en las Relaciones de Pareja

“…Estas características y diferencias podrían deberse a variables culturales, pero en cualquier caso son un reflejo de la dificultad de anticipar y evitar unos delitos que en muchos casos no presentan indicadores «tradicionales» previos. Las diferentes tipologías de agresores de pareja expuestas Carbajosa, Catalá-Miñana, Lila, Gracia y Boira, 2017;Hilton y Eke, 2016;Loinaz, 2014;Llor-Esteban et al, 2016;Petersson, Strand y Selenius, 2016) deben ser tenidas en cuenta a la hora de valorar y gestionar el riesgo, tanto en VCP como en HCP (Dawson y Piscitelli, 2017).…”

User Violence and Psychological Well-being in Primary Health-Care Professionals

“…Workplace violence is considered an important professional risk of psychosocial origin that is triggered by the confluence of various factors, which can be classified as follows: (a) patient factors -male sex, age, presence of physical alterations and pathologies, mental state, presence of psychopathology, patients' perspective; (b) individual factors of health professionals, such as burnout or their attitudes; (c) environmental or organizational factors -type of room, such as emergency units, psychiatry and intensive care units, longterm care or geriatric centers, insufficient staff, assistential pressure, lack of privacy, a climate of tension; (d) factors related to treatment, such as changes or suspension of medication; and (e) factors of interaction and social factors (Ahmad, Al-Rimawi, Masadeh, & Atoum, 2015;Chapman, Styles, Perry, & Combs, 2010;El-Gilany, El-Wehady, & Amr, 2010;Llor-Esteban, García-Jiménez, Ruiz-Hernández, & Godoy-Fernández, 2016;Speroni, Fitch, Dawson, Dugan, & Atherton, 2014;.…”

Differences in treatment adherence, program completion, and recidivism among batterer subtypes

“…In the Spanish setting, the study of typologies has mainly focused on limited samples of IPV batterers in prison or a combination of court-referred and prison batterers (Loinaz, 2014;Llor-Esteban, García-Jiménez, Ruiz-Hernández & Godoy-Fernández, 2016;Ruiz-Hernández, García-Jiménez, Llor-Esteban, & Godoy-Fernández, 2015). In the court-referred context only, Graña, Redondo, Muñoz Rivas, and Cantos (2014) classified a large sample of IPV batterers into three types according to risk level (low, moderate, and high), similar to the typology proposed by Cavanaugh and Gelles (2005).…”