性犯罪者的保护因素和放弃因素:阐明和澄清

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 PSYCHIATRY
Caroline Benouamer , Emilie Telle , Luca A. Tiberi , Thierry H. Pham
{"title":"性犯罪者的保护因素和放弃因素:阐明和澄清","authors":"Caroline Benouamer ,&nbsp;Emilie Telle ,&nbsp;Luca A. Tiberi ,&nbsp;Thierry H. Pham","doi":"10.1016/j.amp.2024.01.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Forensic literature has witnessed a plethora of risk assessment tools, emphasizing on factors increasing recidivism risk. Thus, assessment and care practices of individuals who have offended have gradually evolved when professionals no longer ask what doesn’t work (<em>Nothing works</em>) but what does work (<em>What works</em>) with them. From this positivist forensic psychology perspective, the inclusion of so-called <em>positive</em> factors such as protective or desistance factors is an important issue. A strengths-based approach to risk assessment encourages a more balanced assessment by involving factors mediating, moderating, or even canceling out this risk, specifically protective factors. Despite a strong interest in them, there are many conceptual shortcomings that hinder their use. The existence of these factors is still assumed. While the importance of their integration in assessment is established, their lack of validity hinders it. Hence, the <em>Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors</em> (SAPROF) has been developed to measure exclusively protective factors. The SAPROF assesses internal factors (e.g., intelligence, secure attachment, etc.), motivational factors (e.g., work, leisure activities, etc.), and external factors (e.g., social network, intimate relationship, etc.). An additional version for Individual who have Committed Sexual Offenses (ICSO) has also been developed. The first study consists of a systematized literature review comprising six studies focusing on protective factors identified among ICSOs and the validity of their operational assessment using SAPROF. Main results suggest a poor prediction of the SAPROF. A section of narrative literature focuses on desistance. Desistance paradigm suggests that professionals would be better equipped to deal with individuals who have committed offenses if they were also allowed to guide them and listen to what they think is best for them, rather than insisting that our solutions are best. The principle of <em>What works</em> is therefore complemented by the <em>Why works</em> and <em>How works</em> approaches to rehabilitation by putting offenders back at the heart of the process. As a universal and complex process, desistance involves changes in identity related to exiting the criminal pathway. Therefore, it is a highly individualised and subjective process, whom definitional and operational modalities are still unclear. As with protective factors, narrative literature identifies external and internal factors that might influence the reintegration process. While some desistance factors seem to be common to protective factors such as employment, quality of relationships, or treatment, some non-operational factors are highlighted as narrative discourses or <em>knifing off</em> concept. The second study investigates desistance factors identified through discourses of six male ICSOs on probation or conditional release based on iterative thematic content analysis. Main results highlight a predominance of positive factors relating to desistance, specifically positive interpersonal relationships (external) and cognitive transformations marked by reflective processes linked to offenses (internal). For negative factors hindering their desistance process, ICSOs emphasize internal factors such as access to illicit substances and financial difficulties. To conclude, despite increasing attention, empirical and conceptual definitions are lacking, particularly regarding protective factors and related words. Less is known about how protective factors support desistance from sexual offending. The results of these two complementary studies will be discussed considering the literature, laying the foundations for future research necessary for conceptual and operational clarification of protective and desistance factors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7992,"journal":{"name":"Annales medico-psychologiques","volume":"183 5","pages":"Pages 492-501"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Facteurs de protection et facteurs de désistance chez les Auteurs d’Infraction à Caractère Sexuel : articulation et clarification\",\"authors\":\"Caroline Benouamer ,&nbsp;Emilie Telle ,&nbsp;Luca A. Tiberi ,&nbsp;Thierry H. Pham\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.amp.2024.01.021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Forensic literature has witnessed a plethora of risk assessment tools, emphasizing on factors increasing recidivism risk. Thus, assessment and care practices of individuals who have offended have gradually evolved when professionals no longer ask what doesn’t work (<em>Nothing works</em>) but what does work (<em>What works</em>) with them. From this positivist forensic psychology perspective, the inclusion of so-called <em>positive</em> factors such as protective or desistance factors is an important issue. A strengths-based approach to risk assessment encourages a more balanced assessment by involving factors mediating, moderating, or even canceling out this risk, specifically protective factors. Despite a strong interest in them, there are many conceptual shortcomings that hinder their use. The existence of these factors is still assumed. While the importance of their integration in assessment is established, their lack of validity hinders it. Hence, the <em>Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors</em> (SAPROF) has been developed to measure exclusively protective factors. The SAPROF assesses internal factors (e.g., intelligence, secure attachment, etc.), motivational factors (e.g., work, leisure activities, etc.), and external factors (e.g., social network, intimate relationship, etc.). An additional version for Individual who have Committed Sexual Offenses (ICSO) has also been developed. The first study consists of a systematized literature review comprising six studies focusing on protective factors identified among ICSOs and the validity of their operational assessment using SAPROF. Main results suggest a poor prediction of the SAPROF. A section of narrative literature focuses on desistance. Desistance paradigm suggests that professionals would be better equipped to deal with individuals who have committed offenses if they were also allowed to guide them and listen to what they think is best for them, rather than insisting that our solutions are best. The principle of <em>What works</em> is therefore complemented by the <em>Why works</em> and <em>How works</em> approaches to rehabilitation by putting offenders back at the heart of the process. As a universal and complex process, desistance involves changes in identity related to exiting the criminal pathway. Therefore, it is a highly individualised and subjective process, whom definitional and operational modalities are still unclear. As with protective factors, narrative literature identifies external and internal factors that might influence the reintegration process. While some desistance factors seem to be common to protective factors such as employment, quality of relationships, or treatment, some non-operational factors are highlighted as narrative discourses or <em>knifing off</em> concept. The second study investigates desistance factors identified through discourses of six male ICSOs on probation or conditional release based on iterative thematic content analysis. Main results highlight a predominance of positive factors relating to desistance, specifically positive interpersonal relationships (external) and cognitive transformations marked by reflective processes linked to offenses (internal). For negative factors hindering their desistance process, ICSOs emphasize internal factors such as access to illicit substances and financial difficulties. To conclude, despite increasing attention, empirical and conceptual definitions are lacking, particularly regarding protective factors and related words. Less is known about how protective factors support desistance from sexual offending. The results of these two complementary studies will be discussed considering the literature, laying the foundations for future research necessary for conceptual and operational clarification of protective and desistance factors.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7992,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annales medico-psychologiques\",\"volume\":\"183 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 492-501\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annales medico-psychologiques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003448724001707\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annales medico-psychologiques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003448724001707","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

法医文献见证了过多的风险评估工具,强调增加再犯风险的因素。因此,当专业人士不再问什么不起作用(Nothing works),而是问什么对他们起作用(what works)时,对冒犯者的评估和护理实践就会逐渐发展。从实证法医心理学的角度来看,包括所谓的积极因素,如保护或抵制因素是一个重要的问题。基于优势的风险评估方法通过涉及因素,特别是保护性因素,来促进更平衡的评估,包括调节、缓和甚至消除风险。尽管人们对它们有浓厚的兴趣,但仍有许多概念上的缺陷阻碍了它们的使用。这些因素的存在仍然是假定的。虽然将它们纳入评估的重要性是确定的,但它们缺乏有效性阻碍了它。因此,保护性因素的结构化评估(SAPROF)已经发展到专门测量保护性因素。SAPROF评估内部因素(如智力、安全依恋等)、动机因素(如工作、休闲活动等)和外部因素(如社会网络、亲密关系等)。此外,还制定了针对有性犯罪的个人的附加版本。第一项研究包括系统化的文献综述,其中包括六项研究,重点是在icso中确定的保护因素以及使用SAPROF进行业务评估的有效性。主要结果表明对SAPROF的预测较差。叙事性文学的一个部分侧重于克制。克制范式表明,如果专业人士也被允许指导他们,倾听他们认为对他们最好的方法,而不是坚持认为我们的解决方案是最好的,他们就能更好地处理犯罪的人。因此,“什么有效”的原则与“为什么有效”和“如何有效”的方法相辅相成,将罪犯重新置于过程的核心。戒除是一个普遍而复杂的过程,它涉及到与退出犯罪途径相关的身份变化。因此,这是一个高度个性化和主观的过程,其定义和操作方式仍然不明确。与保护性因素一样,叙事文学确定了可能影响重返社会过程的外部和内部因素。虽然一些阻碍因素似乎与就业、关系质量或待遇等保护性因素共同存在,但一些非操作性因素被强调为叙事话语或刀切概念。第二项研究基于迭代的主题内容分析,通过六名男性ICSOs关于缓刑或有条件释放的话语来确定阻碍因素。主要结果强调了与抵抗相关的积极因素占主导地位,特别是积极的人际关系(外部)和以与冒犯相关的反思过程为标志的认知转变(内部)。对于阻碍其戒毒进程的消极因素,公民社会组织强调内部因素,如获取非法物质和财政困难。总之,尽管越来越受到关注,但缺乏经验和概念上的定义,特别是关于保护因素和相关词语。至于保护性因素是如何支持性侵犯的,我们所知甚少。这两项互补研究的结果将结合文献进行讨论,为进一步研究保护和阻力因素的概念和操作澄清奠定基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Facteurs de protection et facteurs de désistance chez les Auteurs d’Infraction à Caractère Sexuel : articulation et clarification
Forensic literature has witnessed a plethora of risk assessment tools, emphasizing on factors increasing recidivism risk. Thus, assessment and care practices of individuals who have offended have gradually evolved when professionals no longer ask what doesn’t work (Nothing works) but what does work (What works) with them. From this positivist forensic psychology perspective, the inclusion of so-called positive factors such as protective or desistance factors is an important issue. A strengths-based approach to risk assessment encourages a more balanced assessment by involving factors mediating, moderating, or even canceling out this risk, specifically protective factors. Despite a strong interest in them, there are many conceptual shortcomings that hinder their use. The existence of these factors is still assumed. While the importance of their integration in assessment is established, their lack of validity hinders it. Hence, the Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors (SAPROF) has been developed to measure exclusively protective factors. The SAPROF assesses internal factors (e.g., intelligence, secure attachment, etc.), motivational factors (e.g., work, leisure activities, etc.), and external factors (e.g., social network, intimate relationship, etc.). An additional version for Individual who have Committed Sexual Offenses (ICSO) has also been developed. The first study consists of a systematized literature review comprising six studies focusing on protective factors identified among ICSOs and the validity of their operational assessment using SAPROF. Main results suggest a poor prediction of the SAPROF. A section of narrative literature focuses on desistance. Desistance paradigm suggests that professionals would be better equipped to deal with individuals who have committed offenses if they were also allowed to guide them and listen to what they think is best for them, rather than insisting that our solutions are best. The principle of What works is therefore complemented by the Why works and How works approaches to rehabilitation by putting offenders back at the heart of the process. As a universal and complex process, desistance involves changes in identity related to exiting the criminal pathway. Therefore, it is a highly individualised and subjective process, whom definitional and operational modalities are still unclear. As with protective factors, narrative literature identifies external and internal factors that might influence the reintegration process. While some desistance factors seem to be common to protective factors such as employment, quality of relationships, or treatment, some non-operational factors are highlighted as narrative discourses or knifing off concept. The second study investigates desistance factors identified through discourses of six male ICSOs on probation or conditional release based on iterative thematic content analysis. Main results highlight a predominance of positive factors relating to desistance, specifically positive interpersonal relationships (external) and cognitive transformations marked by reflective processes linked to offenses (internal). For negative factors hindering their desistance process, ICSOs emphasize internal factors such as access to illicit substances and financial difficulties. To conclude, despite increasing attention, empirical and conceptual definitions are lacking, particularly regarding protective factors and related words. Less is known about how protective factors support desistance from sexual offending. The results of these two complementary studies will be discussed considering the literature, laying the foundations for future research necessary for conceptual and operational clarification of protective and desistance factors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annales medico-psychologiques
Annales medico-psychologiques 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
196
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annales Médico-Psychologiques is a peer-reviewed medical journal covering the field of psychiatry. Articles are published in French or in English. The journal was established in 1843 and is published by Elsevier on behalf of the Société Médico-Psychologique. The journal publishes 10 times a year original articles covering biological, genetic, psychological, forensic and cultural issues relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, as well as peer reviewed articles that have been presented and discussed during meetings of the Société Médico-Psychologique.To report on the major currents of thought of contemporary psychiatry, and to publish clinical and biological research of international standard, these are the aims of the Annales Médico-Psychologiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信