Recidivism and Characteristics of Highly Dangerous Offenders Being Released from Retrospectively Imposed Preventive Detention: An Empirical Study

Abstract

This study examines the recidivism of offenders who are considered to be highly dangerous but who, as a result of a decision of the German Federal High Court, have not been in preventive detention because it was imposed retrospectively (Group II preventive detention cases; § 66b StGB). Taking into consideration the restrictions imposed by the study, the data were evaluated regarding their usefulness for predicting the likelihood of reoffending. The results of this study suggest that it could be useful to describe criteria for the not very severe reoffending group.

The Problem of Risk Assessment: Can Better Crime Prognoses Reduce Recidivism?

“…Compared to the study of Müller et al (2013), the group of released prisoners that did not reoffend despite being regarded as very dangerous (false positive) was significantly larger (55.8 % vs. 20 %). This can partly be explained by the different methodological approach, but it also indicates the high rate of false predictions in our study.…”

“…Sepejak et al (1983), Klassen and O'Connor (1988) and Lidz et al (1993) examined the recidivism rate after release from psychiatric hospitals and found out that in 41-47 % of all cases with negative crime prognosis, no relapse occurred (false positives). Müller et al (2013) examined all cases that were finally adjudicated according to the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH). 37 decisions by the Federal Supreme Court were available up to the end of the study on June 17, 2008.…”

Recidivism rates of sex offenders managed under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003: an evaluation of actuarial justice

“…Another issue, the extra 'time' (or parole condition outside the length of sentence) that the offender has served on the order in response to that reality has violated the principle of proportionality in that the sentence does not reflect the offence (or reality of an offence; McSherry et al, 2006). In response, it could be argued that as the DPSOA order utilises a civil commitment model, whereby the conditions should be therapeutic in nature, the offender is not technically being punished.…”

“…However, the level of risk will most be often be a judicial one, which determines whether there is 'unacceptable risk' of 'serious sexual offending'. The court therefore considers the risk level as unacceptable if the probability of harm is beyond doubt in the absence of an order (McSherry, Keyzer, & Freiburg, 2006).…”