Gender Differences Between Domestic Violent Men and Women: Criminogenic Risk Factors and Their Association With Treatment Dropout

Although many studies have concluded that men and women engage in domestic violence at equal levels, existing studies have hardly focused on gender specific risk factors for domestic violence perpetration. Therefore, this study aimed to examine gender differences in criminogenic risk factors between Dutch male and female forensic outpatients who were referred to forensic treatment for domestic violence. Clinical structured assessments of criminogenic risk factors were retrieved for 366 male and 87 female outpatients. Gender differences were not only found in the prevalence and interrelatedness of criminogenic risk factors, but also in associations between criminogenic risk factors and treatment dropout. In men, risk factors related to the criminal history, substance abuse, and criminal attitudes were more prevalent than in women, whereas risk factors related to education/work, finances, and the living environment were more prevalent in women. Further, having criminal friends, having a criminal history, and drug abuse were associated with treatment dropout in men, whereas a problematic relationship with family members, housing instability, a lack of personal support, and unemployment were associated with treatment dropout in women. Finally, network analyses revealed gender differences in risk factor interrelatedness. The results provide important insights into gender specific differences in criminogenic risk factors for domestic violence, which support clinical professionals in tailoring treatment to the specific needs of male and female perpetrators of domestic violence.

On patients who explode: surviving petrifying psychotherapeutic experiences

Although most of our patients will enter the consulting room quite quietly, often in a depressive state, having contained their sadistic impulses, a tiny fraction of those with whom we work will attack us in a variety of chilling ways. In this article, the author describes in detail two particularly terrifying clinical experiences in which a patient either threatened to kill him or actually sullied his consulting room with bodily fluids. Drawing upon his psychotherapeutic encounters not only with intellectually disabled patients and forensic patients but, also, with those who presented as ordinary “normal-neurotics”, the author considers the phenomenology of these “bomb”-like explosions and explains how he attempted to maintain a classical psychoanalytical focus of understanding, which consisted of a careful scrutiny of the countertransference and a firm commitment to the interpretation of unconscious material, whilst under attack. Furthermore, he examines the essential role of speaking with experienced colleagues who will provide essential supervision or assistance during these challenging chapters of clinical practice. The author also considers the many ways in which “bombs” can be hurled not only by the more obviously dangerous or disturbed individuals but, also, with surprising frequency, by those with no criminal history whatsoever, who, upon first encounter, often present as reasonably healthy.

Intimate Partner Violence and Subsequent Violent Offending Among Handgun Purchasers

Perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) often reoffend, and firearm access increases risk of severe injury or fatality. Prior research identifies an association between a history of violent misdemeanor convictions among handgun purchasers and increased risk of subsequent arrest for a violent crime; the risk associated specifically with an IPV criminal history remains largely unexplored. The current study examined a cohort of 76,311 California adults who legally purchased a handgun in 2001 and followed them through 2013. Compared with purchasers who had no criminal history at the time of purchase, those with a history of only IPV ( n = 178) charges were at increased risk of subsequent arrest for a violent Crime Index crime (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault; adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4–5.1), any violent crime (AHR, 3.2; 95% CI: 2.0–5.1), and an IPV crime (AHR, 5.2; 95% CI: 3.0–9.0). Purchasers with both IPV and non-IPV charges demonstrated the greatest risk of re-arrest relative to those with no criminal history. Despite the strength of the relationship between IPV and subsequent arrest, a small proportion of handgun purchasers with an IPV criminal history were re-arrested for firearm violence crimes, limiting application for risk assessment purposes. Results affirm prior research identifying IPV as a risk factor for future offending.

Employment and the Post-Release Puzzle: The Lived Experience of Securing Legitimate Work among Women Released from Prison in New Zealand

<p>As incarceration rates continue to rise in New Zealand (The Department of Corrections, 2019b), the number of people being released from prison will also rise. Life sentences are rare and therefore, the majority of people who are sent to prison will, at some point, be released to reside in the community again. Despite this, individuals are leaving prison unprepared for life on the outside, and they face a range of barriers as they try to establish new lives for themselves in the community. Employment is often cited as a stabilising factor after prison, a factor which can help a person to rebuild their life and become a contributing member of society. However, having a criminal history can negatively impact employment prospects, making employment difficult to obtain, especially in an increasingly competitive employment market. Thus far, research looking at employment after prison, and at prison and the post-release period in general, has been largely centred around men. Women and their specific needs are often overlooked in the research and in the criminal justice system due to their lower incarceration rates, and solutions, policies and practices are often created with men in mind, then adapted slightly to ‘fit’ women, without much real recognition of women’s different needs (Baldry, 2010; Mills, Kendall, Lathlean, & Steel, 2013). Therefore, the research undertaken for this project explores the role of employment in the lives of women who have recently been released from prison, looking at the benefits of and barriers to employment through the lived experiences of those who are in the post-release period, with a goal of adding to women-focused literature, which is desperately needed. Through semi-structured interviews, and guided by a feminist methodological framework, I drew on this lived experience of the participants and put their voices at the forefront of the research findings. The key finding was that while employment is vital for long-term success after release, the benefits of employment extend far beyond financial security, and employment is one piece of a post-release puzzle, which without the other pieces, is relatively useless on its own. A more holistic approach is needed in the post-release period to promote success.</p>

Employment and the Post-Release Puzzle: The Lived Experience of Securing Legitimate Work among Women Released from Prison in New Zealand

<p>As incarceration rates continue to rise in New Zealand (The Department of Corrections, 2019b), the number of people being released from prison will also rise. Life sentences are rare and therefore, the majority of people who are sent to prison will, at some point, be released to reside in the community again. Despite this, individuals are leaving prison unprepared for life on the outside, and they face a range of barriers as they try to establish new lives for themselves in the community. Employment is often cited as a stabilising factor after prison, a factor which can help a person to rebuild their life and become a contributing member of society. However, having a criminal history can negatively impact employment prospects, making employment difficult to obtain, especially in an increasingly competitive employment market. Thus far, research looking at employment after prison, and at prison and the post-release period in general, has been largely centred around men. Women and their specific needs are often overlooked in the research and in the criminal justice system due to their lower incarceration rates, and solutions, policies and practices are often created with men in mind, then adapted slightly to ‘fit’ women, without much real recognition of women’s different needs (Baldry, 2010; Mills, Kendall, Lathlean, & Steel, 2013). Therefore, the research undertaken for this project explores the role of employment in the lives of women who have recently been released from prison, looking at the benefits of and barriers to employment through the lived experiences of those who are in the post-release period, with a goal of adding to women-focused literature, which is desperately needed. Through semi-structured interviews, and guided by a feminist methodological framework, I drew on this lived experience of the participants and put their voices at the forefront of the research findings. The key finding was that while employment is vital for long-term success after release, the benefits of employment extend far beyond financial security, and employment is one piece of a post-release puzzle, which without the other pieces, is relatively useless on its own. A more holistic approach is needed in the post-release period to promote success.</p>

Exploring the Contribution of Proximal Family Risk Factors on SLC6A4 DNA Methylation in Children with a History of Maltreatment: A Preliminary Study

The cumulative effects of proximal family risk factors have been associated with a high number of adverse outcomes in childhood maltreatment, and DNA methylation of the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) has been associated with child maltreatment. However, the relationships between proximal family risk factors and SLC6A4 methylation remains unexplored. We examined the association among cumulative family risk factors, maltreatment experiences and DNA methylation in the SLC6A4 gene in a sample of 33 child victims of maltreatment. We computed a cumulative family risk (CFR) index that included proximal family risk factors, such as drug or alcohol abuse, psychopathology, parents’ experiences of maltreatment/abuse in childhood, criminal history, and domestic violence. The majority of children (90.9%) experienced more than one type of maltreatment. Hierarchical regression models suggested that the higher the CFR index score and the number of maltreatment experiences, and the older the children, the higher the SLC6A4 DNA methylation levels. Although preliminary, our findings suggest that, along with childhood maltreatment experiences per se, cumulative proximal family risk factors are seemingly critically associated with DNA methylation at the SLC6A4 gene.

Self-reported psychopathology profiles of high risk violent men with and without a history of physical intimate partner violence

<p>Although intimate partner violent men have been found to be different from non-violent men on a number of variables, little research has compared partner violent men to men who engage in violence outside of relationships. The present research explored the similarities and differences between men with and without a history of physical partner violence within a sample of high risk violent men who attended New Zealands' High Risk Special Treatment Units. Pre-treatment psychopathology, measured on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III (MCMI-III;Millon, Davis, & Millon, 1997) was compared between these two groups and few differences were found. Comparisons on criminal history, criminal risk and change in dynamic risk also revealed no significant differences between these two groups. This research also explored whether similar or different psychopathology subtypes exist among men with and without a history of intimate partner violence. A latent profile analysis was conducted to examine psychopathology subtypes, and the proportions of men with and without a history of partner violence within each subtype were compared. The results showed that there were similar proportions of men from both groups within each of the subtypes, suggesting that men with and without a history of intimate partner violence share similar psychopathology profiles. The likelihood of reconviction or reimprisonment within 1 year of release from prison was also comapred between men with and without a history of intimate partner violence. The two groups were found to be reconvicted at a similar rate for any offence, violent offences, and were at a similar likelihood of being re-imprisoned. To conclude, the results suggest some similarity between men with and without a history of intimate partner violence, but future research should explore a wider range of factors that may distinguish between these two groups and inform whether men who engage in partner violence are unique from men who engage in other forms of violence.</p>

Self-reported psychopathology profiles of high risk violent men with and without a history of physical intimate partner violence

<p>Although intimate partner violent men have been found to be different from non-violent men on a number of variables, little research has compared partner violent men to men who engage in violence outside of relationships. The present research explored the similarities and differences between men with and without a history of physical partner violence within a sample of high risk violent men who attended New Zealands' High Risk Special Treatment Units. Pre-treatment psychopathology, measured on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III (MCMI-III;Millon, Davis, & Millon, 1997) was compared between these two groups and few differences were found. Comparisons on criminal history, criminal risk and change in dynamic risk also revealed no significant differences between these two groups. This research also explored whether similar or different psychopathology subtypes exist among men with and without a history of intimate partner violence. A latent profile analysis was conducted to examine psychopathology subtypes, and the proportions of men with and without a history of partner violence within each subtype were compared. The results showed that there were similar proportions of men from both groups within each of the subtypes, suggesting that men with and without a history of intimate partner violence share similar psychopathology profiles. The likelihood of reconviction or reimprisonment within 1 year of release from prison was also comapred between men with and without a history of intimate partner violence. The two groups were found to be reconvicted at a similar rate for any offence, violent offences, and were at a similar likelihood of being re-imprisoned. To conclude, the results suggest some similarity between men with and without a history of intimate partner violence, but future research should explore a wider range of factors that may distinguish between these two groups and inform whether men who engage in partner violence are unique from men who engage in other forms of violence.</p>

Location, Location, Location? Comparing Release Plan Quality, Community Experience, and Recidivism Rate of High-Risk Offenders Released to a Fresh Start or Returning to the Devil They Know

<p>When offenders are released from prison, does it matter where they go? To answer this question, this study investigated the effects of residential relocation on 282 high-risk male offenders released from New Zealand prisons. Offenders were initially divided into those returning to their old neighbourhoods and those released to a new location. A second division created three groups: offenders released to a new location were further divided into those making a voluntary residential relocation, and those making a residential relocation non-voluntarily. Offender groups were compared on demographic and criminal history variables, release plan quality, experiences at two months in the community, and recidivism. Recidivism indices were breach of release condition, reconviction, violent reconviction, and reimprisonment over the first year post-release. Release destination and release plan quality coding protocols were developed. Results indicated that parolees returning to their old neighbourhoods and those released to a new location reoffended at approximately the same rate. However, parolees relocating under duress breached conditions and reoffended at a higher rate than both parolees making a voluntary residential relocation and those returning to their old neighbourhoods. Significant group differences in release plan quality and experience in the community were few, but suggested that making a voluntary residential relocation may lead to better parole experiences, and that making a residential relocation under duress may lead to worse parole experiences, than returning to a familiar location. Implications, applications, and limitations of the study are discussed, along with possible directions for future research.</p>