A fundamental element of police threat assessment and management (PTAM) is the structured risk assessment. There is an increasing effort to develop adapted instruments for the assessment of threats and risks within PTAM. The present study examines the challenges associated with this from a practitioner's perspective. It examines the extent to which specific factors influence the effective implementation and utilisation of an assessment instrument within PTAM. The study was based on an online survey of 96 employees working within PTAM units ofa state police force. Quantitative analyses identified content-related complexity (e.g. number, description, and operationalisation of items) and organisational conditions (e.g. workload) as key influencing factors. These findings were complemented by qualitative analyses, which identified additional factors such as the & raquo;scientific character & laquo; of an instrument, the & raquo;timing of mandatory use,& laquo; a & raquo;checklist format,& laquo; and a & raquo;tolerance of differing views.& laquo; The findings indicate that effective implementation necessitates several factors, including appropriate operationalisation, comprehensible manuals, clear rating rules, sufficient resources, case prioritisation through a violence risk triage approach, and continuous training. The paper emphasises the importance of considering key influencing factors during the development of such instruments and highlights the challenge to design instruments that are flexible, practice-oriented, and at the same time scientifically sound.
The (criminal) justice system has always been-and continues to be-reliant on external (expert) knowledge. Because the judicial bodies cannot acquire this knowledge on their own, it must be introduced into the proceedings through expert testimony. The requirement that judicial bodies have to evaluate expert evidence as they see fit gives rise to the paradox that courts are expected to assess something that they themselves cannot fully comprehend. A realistic view of expert evidence necessitates accepting its unique characteristics, which ultimately means that special emphasis must be placed on the selection of the expert as well as on effective communication with them. Furthermore, when reviewing the expert opinion, the limitations that are insurmountable for the judiciary must be accepted. The myth that the legal experts handling the case are enabled by the expert to make independent decisions on matters outside their area of expertise should be replaced by the requirement to scrutinize expert reports to the extent that it appears reasonable to use them as the basis fora judicial decision.
Homicides committed by people with mental illnesses receive a great deal of attention in public reporting and political discussion when such crimes occur. However, a significant selection bias in reporting is assumed. In order to determine the proportion ofhomi-cides committed by people with psychotic illnesses in Germany, we used data from police crime statistics and Federal Statistical Offices' prosecution statistics, with the reclassifications in accordance with Section 63 of the German Criminal Code (StGB). Based on the well-documented assumption that approximately 80 % of these cases involve individuals with psychotic disorders or, more specifically, schizophrenia, homicides remained virtually unchanged between 2009 and 2021, according to the calculated linear trend (from 861 to 853). In the meantime, the estimated proportion of perpetrators with psychotic disorders rose from 9 % to 16 %. Therefore, this is not a disease-specific characteristic, but rather has to be considered in the context of a relatively low-violence society with an overall decline in violent crime and homicides. Possible reasons and methodological limitations are discussed.
The events at Augsburg-Gablingen Prison have drawn attention to structural deficits in the management of prisoners with potential mental health problems and diagnosed mental disorders. The independent BgH Commission (besonders gesicherte Haftr & auml;ume-high security detention cells, bgH), established by the Bavarian State Ministry of Justice, was tasked with developing recommendations for placement in high security detention cells as well as for improving psychiatric care in the prison system. This article examines the importance of adequate psychiatric care in preventing disproportionate placements in high security cells and contextualizes the Commission's recommendations from both psychiatric and legal perspectives. The focus is on the principle of equivalence (of prison mental health care with community mental health care), the high burden of mental illness in custody, the risks associated with security-oriented crisis management, and the question of how diagnostics, treatment, transfer procedures, cooperation, and quality assurance can be made more binding. The Commission's recommendations do not represent a special path for Bavaria, but rather describe central reform tasks for prison psychiatry as a whole: systematic needs assessment, binding minimum standards, expansion of inpatient and therapeutic treatment capacities, cooperation with external hospitals, supplementary telemedicine services, qualified staff, and a culture ofinterprofessional responsibility. Compliance with fundamental and human rights principles is non-negotiable. The decisive question now is how these recommendations will be implemented.
The article aims to provide an overview of the forensic practice of expert evidence. First, the tasks and legal position of the expert are explained, before the aspects that are particularly relevant from a judicial pointofview-appointment, selection and instruction of the expert, introduction of the expert opinion and objections to the expert-are presented. Frequently occurring expert opinion questions are illustrated with practice examples. Finally, the challenges for judges and politicians are addressed.
