Izazovi u proceni rizika recidivizma osuđenih na zatvorsku kaznu

Abstract

Uvod: Procena rizika recidivizma je najvažniji segment rada u zatvorskom si- stemu, jer se svaka intervencija zasniva na njenim rezultatima. Procena rizika recidivizma omogućava adekvatno klasifikovanje osuđenih i primenu inter- vencija koje podižu nivo javne bezbednosti, umanjuju brojnost zatvorske po- pulacije kao i troškove koji se ulažu u proces izvršenja kazne. Cilj: Cilj ovog rada je analiza dostupnih istraživanja o instrumentima za procenu rizika recidivizma, koji su u upotrebi sa zatvorskom populacijom, a koji se odnose na pouzdanost, objektivnost, prediktivnu validnost i subjektivnost instrumenata. Metod: Za potrebe uvida u relevantne naučne izvore, korišćena je pretraga elektronskih bibliografskih baza: KOBSON, Google Scholar, ResearchGate. Rezultati: Analizom dostupnih radova utvrđeno je da je u upotrebi više od sto instrumenata procene, od kojih je preko šezdeset razvijeno i primenjuje se u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama. Postoje nekonzistentni rezultati koji se odnose na pouzdanost, objektivnost, prediktivnu validnost i subjektivnost instrumenata procene. Dobijeni rezultati su posledica postojanja velikog bro- ja instrumenata koji se razlikuju prema obimu, faktorima koji se procenjuju, bodovanju pojedinačnih kriminogenih potreba i faze izvršenja kazne u kojoj se primenjuju. Dodatno, nekonzistentni rezultati su posledica neadekvatne obuke procenjivača i primene instrumenata na populaciji prestupnika na kojoj nisu validirani. Zaključak: Iako se procena rizika recidivizma osuđenih na zatvorsku kaznu to- kom vremena razvijala, uvažavajući naučna saznanja, i dalje postoje problemi u praksi. Iz tog razloga, neophodno je nastaviti istraživanja u ovoj oblasti, kako bi nedostaci procene bili svedeni na minimum. U suprotnom, neadekvatna procena bi doprinela neadekvatnoj klasifikaciji osuđenih. Takva situacija bi dovela do primene tretmana koji, u konkretnom slučaju, nije prilagođen rizi- cima, kapacitetima i potrebama, što bi potencijalno rezultovalo povećanjem recidivizma.

Introduction: Recidivism risk assessment is the most significant segment of prison system operations as each intervention is based on its findings. Recidivism risk assessment enables the adequate classification of convicts and the application of interventions that raise the level of public safety, reduce the number of the prison population as well as the costs invested in the process of execution of the sentence. Aim: The aim of this paper is to analyse available research on recidivism risk assessment instruments which are used on prison population and which are associated with reliability, objectivity, productive value and subjectivity of the instrument. Method: For the purpose of gaining an insight into relevant scientific sources, the following electronic bibliographical data bases were searched: KOBSON, Google Scholar, ResearchGate. Results: The analysis of the available papers found that more than one hundred assessment instruments were in use, of which over sixty were developed and applied in the United States. There are inconsistencies in terms of reliability, objectivity, predictive value and subjectivity of the assessment instruments. The obtained results are a consequence of a vast number of instruments which vary according to their comprehensiveness, assessed factors, individual needs score and the sentence serving phases they are implemented in. Additionally, the inconsistencies in the results are the consequences of inadequate training of the users and inadequate application of the instruments on the prison population they are not valid for. Conclusion: Despite the fact that recidivism risk assessment in convicts has been developed over time with the respect of scientific findings, there are still certain issues in practice. This makes continuous research in this filed necessary so that the shortcomings of the assessment could be reduced to minimum. Otherwise, inadequate assessment would contribute to inadequate classification of convicts. Such situations would lead to application of treatments which are not well adjusted to the risks, capacities and needs which, in turn, would potentially result in increased recidivism rates.