JL

The case study of Jay presented by Tully is a case involving a male offender accused of sexual offenses against children. Tully outlines the psychological assessment conducted to determine Jay’s level of sexual deviancy and risk of reoffending. Jay initially denied ever accessing indecent images of children, had a history suggestive of deviant sexual interests related to nappies and urination, including possession of child exploitation material and boundary violating behavior. The case required a detailed forensic psychological evaluation to inform sentencing and risk management decisions.

Tully (2019) explains that her role as the forensic psychology professional in selecting the risk assessment instrument is to find assessments that best address concerns and areas of high risk for Jay (psychometric assessments). Which includes choosing measures that could validly assess sexual deviancy, risk of sexual reoffending, and psychological functioning relevant to court concerns. In this case, tools such as the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Rosenberg Measure, Risk Matrix 2000, Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R) and Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) were used. Tully (2019) explained the importance in ensuring the tools selected were both empirically supported and suitable for use in legal contexts, and that they aligned with the referral questions posed by the court.

 Response to your colleagues’ posts by explaining why you agree or disagree with their forensic risk assessment instrument choice and defend your explanation with at least one scholarly resource.

Note: Your responses to colleagues should be substantial (250 words minimum), supported with scholarly evidence from your research and/or the Learning Resources, and properly cited using APA style. Your responses should enrich the initial post by supporting and/or adding a fresh viewpoint and be constructive, enhancing the learning experience for all students.