바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

A Preliminary Study to Develop a System for Probation Case Classification

Korean Journal of Psychology: General / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2005, v.24 no.1, pp.141-165




Abstract

This study investigated the latent risk factors at probation on the in-take case interview. Besides static risk factors dynamic risk factors were included in order to find out more effect predictors of recidivism. 642 probationers were participated from Y and C probational offices. Among them, 300 juveniles and 342 adults were included. For juvenile probationers, recidivism-related behavior was related to the types of measures and dispositions, number of accomplice, same kinds of crime, previous fine, previous probation, presence of criminal records, years of education, attitude on education, family to live with, family breakdown, parent' attitude on child-rearing, relationship with parent, admitting responsibility of current crime, attitude on intake interview and completeness of registration forms, and accordance of contents on registration forms. Prediction of recidivism-related behaviors for adult probationers had similar patterns to juveniles' but there were some dissimilarities. For adults, violation of Society Protection Law and early onset of delinquency were relatively more effective predictors to predict recidivism-related behavior compared to other risk factors. Also employment and job attitudes were effective predictors for predicting adults' recidivism.

keywords
보호관찰, 재범예측, 위험성평가, 역동적 위험요인, probation, recidivism prediction, risk assessment, dynamic risk factor, probation, recidivism prediction, risk assessment, dynamic risk factor

Reference

1.

이수정, (2004) 유영철에 관한 몇 가지 의문,

2.

Andrews, (1998) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, Cincinnati Anderson Publishing Co

3.

Dawes, (1993) A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences,

4.

Gendreau,P, (1987) Revivification of rehabilitation:Evidence from the 1980s,

5.

Grann, M.,, (2000) Actuarial assessment of risk for violence Predictive validity of the VRAG and historical part of the HCR-20,

6.

Grove, W. G.,, (2000) Clinical versus statistical prediction: A meta-analysis.,

7.

Grove, W. M., , (1996) Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy., impressionistic

8.

Hoffman,P, (1994) Twenty years of operational use of a risk prediction instrument:The United States Parole Commission's salient factor score,

9.

Monahan, (1981) The Clinical Prediction of Violent Behavior,

10.

Monahan,J, (1984) The prediction of violent behavior:Toward a second generation of theory and policy,

11.

Monahan,J, (1993) Limiting therapist exposure to Tarasoff liability:Guildlines for risk containment,

12.

Monahan,J, (1996) Violence prediction:The past twenty and the next twenty years,

13.

Van Voorhis, (2000) Correctional Counseling and Rehabilitation 4th ed. ,

Korean Journal of Psychology: General