PSY 622 Duty to Warn and Violence Risk Assessments
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages
Rubric and Responses attached
Discuss the Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) with your classmates in the weekly discussion topic. Using the appropriate terminology, examine the background, participants, and historical significance of this case in relation to violence risk assessments used in today’s forensic practice. In your discussion, provide the psychometrics of two violence risk assessments that are preferred in your battery intervention program.
In response to your peers, build upon their analysis. Is there something you notice in your peers’ conclusions that they did not? Is there a different way of interpreting the violence risk assessments?
To complete this assignment, review the Discussion Rubric document.
In Module Eight, students will explore forensic psychological assessments in relation to violence risk potential. According to Chandler (2013), the recent occurrence of mass gun shootings in the United States has led to the development of violence risk reduction strategies among forensic professionals. Recent prevalence studies have indicated that over 470,000 U.S. citizens were victims of a gun-related crime and over 11,000 were killed from gun shootings in 2006 (Chandler, 2013). From 2008 to 2009, over 5,700 U.S. children and teens were victims of gun-related violence. Despite the popularity of gang violence in the media, a significant number of gun-related deaths have occurred among known perpetrators: spouses and family members. This is particularly noticed among criminal psychologists who assess for domestic and family violence potential during probation and sentencing hearings.
As students examine violence risk assessments, it is essential to understand the importance of Tarasoff v. the Regents of the University of California (1976). Since this historic case, the duty to warn the potential victims of harm has become paramount to practicing psychotherapists. This is also ethically important for forensic examiners who have accurately testified to psychometric data that support the probability of violence. As students review the various violence risk measures in this module, it may become quickly apparent that many violence measures rely on past collateral information and expert rate evaluations during interviews (Weiner & Hess, 2006). This is particular true for the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA). The SARA is a commonly used forensic screening tool for domestic violence (Chandler, 2014). Specifically, the SARA is geared towards male perpetrators. Each subscale is calculated into percentile ranks. Generally, the higher the percentile, the higher the degree of concern is for domestic violence. (See example of SARA questions). As students progress to Module Nine, they will examine sex offender risk assessments commonly seen in forensic practice.
Chandler, D. (2013). Firearm-related child abuse and the development therapeutic risk: typologies for at-risk parents. The Forensic Therapist. The National Association of Forensic Counselors.
Chandler, D. (2014). The essentials of forensic family psychotherapy: A brief guide to investigative narrative analysis. Retrieved from http://www.lulu.com/shop/donald-chandler-jr-phd/th…
Weiner, I., & Hess, A. (2006). The handbook of forensic psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. (1976). Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-key…