Risk assessment is of high importance when dealing with the prevention of criminal behavior. Over the last 50 years, quite a number of researchers have provided their reviews on the development of risk assessment in the field of criminology. According to these researchers, there are four major generations of risk assessment.

The first generation of risk assessment began during the middle of the twentieth century. It was founded on amorphous clinical judgments of risk that were predisposed to error and bias and required statistical calculations of risk (Campbell et al., 2009). The second generation risk assessment tools made use of additive point scales and comprised of items connecting to such things as criminal history and mental illness diagnoses. The third generation risk assessment tools intergrated theoretically driven factors, principally those pertaining to social learning theory. The fourth/current generation of risk assessment instruments are precisely designed to be incorporated into the selection of intercession modes and targets for treatment, as well as the valuation of rehabilitation progress. This generation tools are multi-theoretical in content.

Risk assessments of lawbreakers and offender organizations are important for judges, jail and prison bureaucrats, and pretrial service departments. In criminology, risk assessments and offender classifications are utilized in a number of ways. This includes decision-making on pretrials in regards to detention/release and bail setting for the lawbreaker, determining the conditions of community observation for individuals on probation and release on parole, and the proper allocation of offenders in state and centralized prisons with proper levels of security.

‘Risk’ is quite a significant term, thus, we must consider the potential positive results as well as the negative ones. There is always a risk that the lawbreaker will never offend again. An offender usually doesn’t have the same level of risk for every offence. For instance, an offender might have a higher risk of stealing than committing a sexual crime.

Emergency management is the process of developing and implementing policies that are concerned with prepredness, mitigation, response and recovery. The risk assessment approach to emergency management activities is required to ensure risks are acknowledged and suitable controls are effected to reduce/eradicate risk. When risk assessments are conducted for potential offenders, they help the community in preparing for emergencies/disasters that may be caused by these potential law breakers. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics can improve or worsen the effect of a hazard. As the aim of risk assessment is to decrease the risk to communities in disaster circumstances, the evidence gained from any assessment should be used effectively.

To mental health professionals, Risk assessment is quite relevant. The mental health practioners can be called to assess the risk of their clients being violent in future. This is also relevant in professional conduct contexts as well as civil and criminal law. Risk assessment is quite necessary in the civil law field; in relation to the involuntary commitment of those diagnosed with a mental illness. In detention this prevents the spread of infectious diseases and assessing the risk of child abuse in family law matters. Mental health professionals may also be asked to write reports in relation to the risk of a lawbreaker reoffending, to be used in the purposes of sentencing and precautionary detention, bail applications and the disposition of offenders with mental disorders and during early release.

References

Canton, L.G. (2007). Emergency Management: Concepts and Strategies for Effective

Programs. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Roberts, P. (2007). Toward a national hazards risk assessment. Journal of Homeland

Security and Emergency Management

Rodriguez, H., Diaz, W., & Aguirre, B. (2004). Communicating risk and warnings: an

integrated and interdisciplinary research approach, Preliminary Paper # 337, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.