Search

The role of serious mental illness among those who sexually offend is not well understood. We investigated clinical and risk-related areas of difference between male forensic psychiatric patients with ( n = 86) and without ( n = 245) a sexual offense history, including the age at which indications of mental disorder and criminal offending first emerged, from a registry of Ontario patients adjudicated Not Criminally Responsible on account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) from 1999–2012. We further explored motivations for offending among a subset of patients deemed NCRMD for a sexual offense specifically ( n = 41). While no differences were found in the age onset of illness or offending across those with and without a sexual offending history, the former group was rated as having higher levels of historical/static risk for violence. Forensic patients with a sexual offense history were also more likely to offend against a stranger, and less likely to offend against a family member. Sexual index offenses were psychotically-motivated in the majority of cases, but with a meaningful proportion appearing to reflect criminogenic motivations, especially substance use and paraphilic interests. Results suggest greater similarity than difference among forensic patients with and without a sexual offense history, but also highlight an important divergence from the literature showing that victims of sexual offenses are frequently known to the individual committing them.

Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents major challenges to places of detention, including secure forensic hospitals. International guidance presents a range of approaches to assist in decreasing the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks as well as responses to manage outbreaks of infection should they occur. Methods: We conducted a literature search on pandemic or outbreak management in forensic mental health settings, including gray literature sources, from 2000 to April 2020. We describe the evolution of a COVID-19 outbreak in our own facility, and the design, and staffing of a forensic isolation unit. Results: We found a range of useful guidance but no published experience of implementing these approaches. We experienced outbreaks of COVID-19 on two secure forensic units with 13 patients and 10 staff becoming positive. One patient died. The outbreaks lasted for 41 days on each unit from declaration to resolution. We describe the approaches taken to reduction of infection risk, social distancing and changes to the care delivery model. Conclusions: Forensic secure settings present major challenges as some proposals for pandemic management such as decarceration or early release are not possible, and facilities may present challenges to achieve sustained social distancing. Assertive testing, cohorting, and isolation units are appropriate responses to these challenges.

Developmental trajectories regarding the age onset of violence and offending have not routinely considered the role of major mental illness (MMI). In parallel, despite several studies investigating the relationship between MMI, violence and offending, fewer have identified motivational processes that may link illness to these outcomes in a more direct and proximal manner. This study investigates whether subtypes of forensic psychiatric patients deemed Not Criminally Responsible on account of Mental Disorder ( N = 91) can be identified based on the age onset of mental illness and offending behavior, and whether information on motivational influences for offending—elicited both from the patient directly and detailed collateral information—contributes to the clinical utility of this typology. Results indicated that most patients reported engaging in violence (51%) or antisocial behaviors (72%) prior to the onset of MMI, but that the index offense(s) resulting in forensic admission were predominantly psychotically motivated. In contrast to patients for whom the onset of MMI occurred prior to offending, patients exhibiting premorbid violence had higher levels of risk and criminogenic need; they were more likely to be diagnosed with personality and substance use disorders, and to have conventional (i.e., non-illness-related) motivations ascribed to their index offense. Findings are consistent with the existing literature regarding subgroups of mentally disordered offenders, but provide new information regarding proximal risk factors for violence through better identification of motivational processes.

Objective: To identify subgroups of forensic psychiatric patients based on the age onset of serious mental illness and offending and assess the external validity of the subgroups with theoretically based sociodemographic, clinical, legal and risk-related variables. Method: The age onset of serious mental illness and criminal contact was ascertained for a sample of 232 patients. A range of sociodemographic, clinical, legal and risk-related variables were coded to assess whether age onset subgroups differed in a manner consistent with the literature on typologies of mentally ill offenders. Results: One-quarter of the sample was classified as early starters (patients whose first offense occurred before becoming mentally ill), while two-thirds were late starters (where first offense occurred following illness onset). A small percentage (8%) of patients were deemed late late starters, defined as late starters who had experienced 10+ years of illness and were >37 years upon first arrest. A larger proportion of early starters had a substance use disorder, antisocial personality disorder and a greater number of static/historical risk factors for violence. Early starters were younger upon first arrest and had more previous criminal contacts compared to late starters and late late starters. Mental illness was found to start later in life for late late starters; this group was also more likely to have been married and to have a spouse as victim in the index offense. Conclusion: We found support for distinct subgroups of mentally ill offenders based on the age onset of illness and criminal contact. Compared to late starters, offenses committed by early starters may be motivated more frequently by antisocial lifestyle and attitudes, as well as more instrumental behaviors related to substance abuse. In addition, late late starters may represent a distinct third subgroup within late starters, characterized by relatively higher levels of functioning and social stability; future work should replicate. Findings suggest different rehabilitation needs of the subgroups.

Children with high dysregulated affect experience a range of emotional and behavioral problems, including aggression, delinquency, and low levels of prosocial behavior. Alongside this research, the psychopathy literature suggests that abnormally low levels of affect and emotional reactivity are associated with aggression and violence. The current study builds on prior research in the fields of affect regulation and psychopathy by testing the effects of affect dysregulation and deficient affect in predicting aggression and antisociality in 179 high-risk youth. Using structural equation modeling, results suggest that affect dysregulation and deficient affect are separate risk factors for aggression, as both constructs contributed independently to aggression while showing marginal relations with one another. Features of deficient affect, but not dysregulation, were robust predictors of violent and nonviolent offending. We discuss the importance of recognizing that diverse risk factors may lead to similar outcomes and highlight the heterogeneity in risk factors underlying aggressive behaviors.