Do a literature review of myocardial infarction.

777777777777777777777777777777777777
Case Consult Report

Please note: These are descriptions of the instruments and the general categories on which they focus in criminal psychology. These are not the actual risk assessment tools, and they do not provide examples of actual risk measures. Giving out the actual assessment tools to untrained practitioners would be unethical; the information you will receive is easily accessed via the Internet.

Case Consult Report: Mr. Tom Rose

Instructions:

Review the following case and write a short case consult.
Use the attached document on risk assessment to complete the risk assessment component of the case consult. In writing the report please remain mindful of the potential audience which would include the client, their lawyer, the court and a peer reviewer.
The report should be organized in a logical manner and written with professional language.
Grading:

The evaluation of this project will focus on

The comprehensive nature of the case consult
The rational and explination used for the risk assessment
Overall quality of the composition
Compliance with the format requirements.

Format:

1. A minimum of 3,000 words (approximately 8 narrative pages) not including cover page and references page

2. The cover page should include the name and number of the course, the name of the student, title of the project and the date of submission.

3. The narrative composition is to be 12 pt font, double spacing, with 1 inch margins

4. Resources, including course materials, must be cited both in the narrative where appropriate and on a separate references page, using APA citation rules.
Case Consult Information:

Mr. Rose is a 30 year old single male with no dependants. He was recently convicted of assault and sexual assault and was sentenced to three years federal custody. The offense was committed against his former girlfriend. In the instant offense Mr. Rose went to the apartment of his former girlfriend late at night and forced entry into the residence. The former girlfriend had attempted to deny access to the apartment due to the ending of their relationship 3 months prior and due to the fact that Mr. Rose arrived late at night, intoxicated and carrying a backpack with a 6-pack of beer. Over the next four hours Mr. Rose continued to drink and berate her, demanding that she tell him about any relationships she has had since their split. The victim insisted that there had been no relationships with other persons and Mr. Rose accused her of lying. He proceeded to sexually assault her. The assault included slapping, punching, forced intercourse and vaginal penetration with a beer bottle. During the assault he repeatedly stated that he would kill her. He eventually passed out and the victim was able to escape to a neighbor’s apartment and phone the police. Mr. Rose was arrested in her apartment. Mr. Rose pleaded not guilty and insisted that the sexual activity was consensual. During the trial Mr. Rose accused the judge of taking the victim’s side because she was attractive and cried in court. Mr. Rose was found guilty and sentenced to three years’ incarceration an additional five years of supervised release and was mandated to sex offender and substance abuse treatment. Mr. Rose was adamant that he will not participate in any form of treatment.

Mr. Rose has arrived for the assessment in casual dress. He states that he will comply with the interview but does not believe that it will be helpful to him as; “You bastards just make up what you want anyway”. Mr. Rose signed the informed consent. Mr. Rose described his relationship with the victim as his most significant and longest live-in relationship. They lived together on and off for approximately six years. The relationship was tumultuous with violent arguments and repeated break ups. During these break ups they would live apart for periods of 4-6 months. Mr. Rose would return to the relationship and as he stated, “she couldn’t live without me and always took me back”. The victim reported that the arguments were mostly about his drinking and his friends whom the victim stated were a bad influence on Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose also would constantly accuse the victim of cheating and would check her cell phone and email and often had friends follow her and report her activities. She described him as violent, controlling and extremely jealous. Mr. Rose blamed the victim for being a boring nag and for cheating although he never had any proof of infidelity. Mr. Rose when asked stated that he thought all women cheated and were constantly “looking for something better” in a man.

When asked why he remained in the relationship with someone he didn’t trust Mr. Rose replied that the “sex was great” and that “she would let me try new things”. Mr. Rose also said that she was able to “keep up with me” regarding his sex drive. Mr. Rose stated that he needed to have sex daily and that in prior relationships he would often supplement sexually by having casual sexual encounters with women he met at the bar or with prostitutes. Mr. Rose reported that sex was very important to him and that if his partner was unwilling to provide him with sex he was always able to find it somewhere else. Mr. Rose estimates that he has had over 60 sexual partners in his lifetime. Mr. Rose also stated that he was a regular attendee of strip clubs and that he would go there alone after work, especially if he had had a bad day. Mr. Rose reported that this was a source of arguments with partners but that he thought it was the best way for him to manage stress.

Mr. Rose’s criminal history is extensive and diverse. It began at age 16 and over the past 15 years he has been sentenced for a variety of charges on 12 separate occasions. The charges included assault, theft, reckless driving (street racing), and drug possession. Mr. Rose explained that the assaults were all against men and were the result of the other men being jealous of their girlfriend’s interest in him sexually. Mr. Rose stated that he has never lost a fight and that he honed his skills during his many stints in jail. Mr. Rose admits that he has a problem following rules and he does not listen to what authority figures tell him to do. His most recent supervised release was ended when he was arrested for a DUI when out past the court imposed curfew.

Mr. Rose’s employment consists of construction work. He has been in that field for over 10 years and finds it satisfying. His legal problems have not interfered with his work as he claims that there are always other guys “willing to fill in for me” when he is unable to report for work. When not working Mr. Rose enjoys working on cars and spends days at a friend’s garage working on cars and driving the cars. Mr. Rose drinks beer during this time. Although he reports that alcohol is not a problem for him he admits to drinking until he is drunk or passed out on weekends or after a stressful day or argument with his partner. He also states that he smokes marijuana regularly to relax.

Mr. Rose reports that he has many friends and is well known in the community. His two closest friends are Bob and Rick and he has known them for over 10 years. He met Bob while in county jail where Bob was serving time for drug possession and distribution. He states that Bob no longer sell drugs because he now works in construction. Bob does use his former connections, however, to procure marijuana to smoke. Bob has an order of protection against him for calling the victim repeatedly to relay messages from Mr. Rose which was a violation of a court non-communication order. Mr. Rose met Steve through Bob. Steve owns the garage where they spend a majority of their time. Steve also lives in the same apartment building as the victim. Mr. Rose states that Steve “keeps an eye on her for me”. Neither Bob nor Steve believe that the current offense happened but have stated that if it did, it was instigated by the victim.

Mr. Rose has limited contact with his parents. He at one time lived with them while on supervised release but said that they “kept trying to control me and gave me a curfew like a child”. The parents stated that their son took advantage of their living arrangement and refused to pay for expenses, stole, damaged property and had loud parties. They stated that they only wanted him to pay for any additional expenses, abide by the court ordered curfew and to seek counseling for alcohol. Mr. Rose stated that he has no intention of attending any type of treatment and could care less if he ever spoke to his family again.

Mr. Rose’s plans for the future are to “keep on keeping on” which he explained meant to return to the same community and pick up where he left off. He does not believe that there is any aspect of his behavior that he needs to change and that his difficulties are the result of law enforcement “picking on me and getting me for minor crap”. Mr. Rose takes no responsibility for his offenses and describes them as not serious and the fault of others instigating him. When asked about his relationship difficulties Mr. Rose does claim total responsibility for any problems. He states that he has been “too giving” and this has allowed his partners to make a fool out of him and to “get out of hand”. He stated that in the future he will be more careful about whom he dates. When asked about the future of any interactions with the victim he stated that he “would have to wait and see what she is up to”. Mr. Rose was not able to articulate whether he thought he would attempt to continue his relationship with the victim and stated, “My lawyer says I shouldn’t talk about that.”

 

Case Consult Report: Mr. Rose.

Risk Assessment Instrument

One of the most frequent aspects of forensic mental health is answering the questions of risk, needs and responsivity of a forensic client. In the criminal justice field this is most often focused on whether a person will recidivate (commit another or a similar crime), whether they will respond to treatment and what type of treatment needs should be addressed. You have already read about and discussed risk assessment of clients and will be familiar with the term criminogenic needs which are important when determining risk to re-offend. Additionally offenders that have committed a sexual offense need to be assessed for specific characteristics associated with sexual offender recidivism.

Criminogenic needs:

Anti-social personality
Anti-social attitudes and values
Anti-social associates
Family dysfunction
Poor self control and poor problem solving skills
Substance abuse
Lack of employment/employment skills
Sex offender specific needs:

Hostility towards women
Deviant sexual interest
Sexual pre-occupation
Emotional identification with children
When reviewing the case please address the following risk domains:

Employment/Education
Substance abuse
Marital/Family relations
Associates and Social Interaction
Community Functioning
Personal/Emotional orientation
Attitude
Sex Offender Specific
EMPLOYMENT

Factors Considered: This domain deals with the role of work in the offender’s life. Needs indicators include employment history, if any; positive and negative aspects of work history (such as job performance, absenteeism, unstable work record, having been fired, inability to earn sufficient salary to live on, having difficulty with co-workers and/or superiors), educational deficiencies (including intelligence, learning disabilities), and vocational skills).

SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Factors Considered: This domain is concerned with an offender’s problems, if any, with alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and with any prior treatment programs. It includes details concerning the substance abuse, the extent to which alcohol or other drugs interfered with the offender’s pro-social experiences (such as marital/family relations, employment, and social situations), and information about prior substance abuse treatment programming.

MARITAL/FAMILY

Factors Considered: This domain is concerned with an offender’s family relationships. Needs indicators include relationships with parents and siblings, absence of parents, history of family abuse and/or criminality, marital history, dependants, parenting skills, and involvement in child abuse.

ASSOCIATES/SOCIAL INTERACTION

Factors Considered: This domain focuses on the characteristics and qualities of the offender’s interactions with others, particularly the offender’s peer group(s). Anti-social associates and interaction patterns are of special interest. Needs indicators include the extent to which the offender interacts with and is influenced by others with a pro-criminal lifestyle, gang membership, and interactions with others characterized by predation.

COMMUNITY FUNCTIONING

Factors Considered: This domain considers the offender’s capability for functioning adequately in the community. The domain covers a wide range of community living skills: stable, well-maintained place of residence, health, hygiene and nutrition, financial management skills, appropriate leisure time activities, and awareness of available social assistance programs.

PERSONAL/EMOTIONAL ORIENTATION

Factors Considered: This domain covers a multi-faceted and wide range of personal and emotional need factors that have been shown to be predictive of criminal and recidivistic behavior. This dimension includes needs that fall into three major categories:

Cognitive defects, which include problem-solving, inter-personal relationship skills, inability to understand the feelings of others, and narrow, rigid thinking.
Behavioral problems, including behaviors likely to result in negative consequences, such as impulsivity, risk-taking, aggression, anger, frustration tolerance and gambling.
Personal Characteristics, which may increase the likelihood that the offender will be involved in criminal behavior (e.g., personality dispositions, behavioral preferences [including inappropriate sexual attitudes or preferences], and mental status characteristics).
ATTITUDE

Factors Considered: This domain considers the characteristics and extent of the offender’s pro-social and anti-social attitudes. It is concerned with favorable attitudes toward crime and violence and minimization of the impacts of criminal behavior and disregard for convention, the justice system, and the rights of others.

SEX OFFENDER SPECIFIC

Factors Considered: This domain considers the characteristics and extent of the sex offender’s specific risk for recidivism. It is concerned with hostile attitudes towards women (regardless if the victim was a female or an adult), the extent of the offenders interest in deviant sexual practices (either admitted or known through criminal history), how much time the offender spends in sexual activity (engaging in sex, viewing porn, going to strip clubs, talking about sex with others), and the emotional identification with children which can be recognized in an offender’s dress, hobbies, interests, media preferences and ideas about childhood and children (this factor is not considered if the offender has no child [under 14] victims).
999999999999999999999999999999999
Case Consult Report

Please note: These are descriptions of the instruments and the general categories on which they focus in criminal psychology. These are not the actual risk assessment tools, and they do not provide examples of actual risk measures. Giving out the actual assessment tools to untrained practitioners would be unethical; the information you will receive is easily accessed via the Internet.

Case Consult Report: Mr. Tom Rose

Instructions:

Review the following case and write a short case consult.
Use the attached document on risk assessment to complete the risk assessment component of the case consult. In writing the report please remain mindful of the potential audience which would include the client, their lawyer, the court and a peer reviewer.
The report should be organized in a logical manner and written with professional language.
Grading:

The evaluation of this project will focus on

The comprehensive nature of the case consult
The rational and explination used for the risk assessment
Overall quality of the composition
Compliance with the format requirements.

Format:

1. A minimum of 3,000 words (approximately 8 narrative pages) not including cover page and references page

2. The cover page should include the name and number of the course, the name of the student, title of the project and the date of submission.

3. The narrative composition is to be 12 pt font, double spacing, with 1 inch margins

4. Resources, including course materials, must be cited both in the narrative where appropriate and on a separate references page, using APA citation rules.
Case Consult Information:

Mr. Rose is a 30 year old single male with no dependants. He was recently convicted of assault and sexual assault and was sentenced to three years federal custody. The offense was committed against his former girlfriend. In the instant offense Mr. Rose went to the apartment of his former girlfriend late at night and forced entry into the residence. The former girlfriend had attempted to deny access to the apartment due to the ending of their relationship 3 months prior and due to the fact that Mr. Rose arrived late at night, intoxicated and carrying a backpack with a 6-pack of beer. Over the next four hours Mr. Rose continued to drink and berate her, demanding that she tell him about any relationships she has had since their split. The victim insisted that there had been no relationships with other persons and Mr. Rose accused her of lying. He proceeded to sexually assault her. The assault included slapping, punching, forced intercourse and vaginal penetration with a beer bottle. During the assault he repeatedly stated that he would kill her. He eventually passed out and the victim was able to escape to a neighbor’s apartment and phone the police. Mr. Rose was arrested in her apartment. Mr. Rose pleaded not guilty and insisted that the sexual activity was consensual. During the trial Mr. Rose accused the judge of taking the victim’s side because she was attractive and cried in court. Mr. Rose was found guilty and sentenced to three years’ incarceration an additional five years of supervised release and was mandated to sex offender and substance abuse treatment. Mr. Rose was adamant that he will not participate in any form of treatment.

Mr. Rose has arrived for the assessment in casual dress. He states that he will comply with the interview but does not believe that it will be helpful to him as; “You bastards just make up what you want anyway”. Mr. Rose signed the informed consent. Mr. Rose described his relationship with the victim as his most significant and longest live-in relationship. They lived together on and off for approximately six years. The relationship was tumultuous with violent arguments and repeated break ups. During these break ups they would live apart for periods of 4-6 months. Mr. Rose would return to the relationship and as he stated, “she couldn’t live without me and always took me back”. The victim reported that the arguments were mostly about his drinking and his friends whom the victim stated were a bad influence on Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose also would constantly accuse the victim of cheating and would check her cell phone and email and often had friends follow her and report her activities. She described him as violent, controlling and extremely jealous. Mr. Rose blamed the victim for being a boring nag and for cheating although he never had any proof of infidelity. Mr. Rose when asked stated that he thought all women cheated and were constantly “looking for something better” in a man.

When asked why he remained in the relationship with someone he didn’t trust Mr. Rose replied that the “sex was great” and that “she would let me try new things”. Mr. Rose also said that she was able to “keep up with me” regarding his sex drive. Mr. Rose stated that he needed to have sex daily and that in prior relationships he would often supplement sexually by having casual sexual encounters with women he met at the bar or with prostitutes. Mr. Rose reported that sex was very important to him and that if his partner was unwilling to provide him with sex he was always able to find it somewhere else. Mr. Rose estimates that he has had over 60 sexual partners in his lifetime. Mr. Rose also stated that he was a regular attendee of strip clubs and that he would go there alone after work, especially if he had had a bad day. Mr. Rose reported that this was a source of arguments with partners but that he thought it was the best way for him to manage stress.

Mr. Rose’s criminal history is extensive and diverse. It began at age 16 and over the past 15 years he has been sentenced for a variety of charges on 12 separate occasions. The charges included assault, theft, reckless driving (street racing), and drug possession. Mr. Rose explained that the assaults were all against men and were the result of the other men being jealous of their girlfriend’s interest in him sexually. Mr. Rose stated that he has never lost a fight and that he honed his skills during his many stints in jail. Mr. Rose admits that he has a problem following rules and he does not listen to what authority figures tell him to do. His most recent supervised release was ended when he was arrested for a DUI when out past the court imposed curfew.

Mr. Rose’s employment consists of construction work. He has been in that field for over 10 years and finds it satisfying. His legal problems have not interfered with his work as he claims that there are always other guys “willing to fill in for me” when he is unable to report for work. When not working Mr. Rose enjoys working on cars and spends days at a friend’s garage working on cars and driving the cars. Mr. Rose drinks beer during this time. Although he reports that alcohol is not a problem for him he admits to drinking until he is drunk or passed out on weekends or after a stressful day or argument with his partner. He also states that he smokes marijuana regularly to relax.

Mr. Rose reports that he has many friends and is well known in the community. His two closest friends are Bob and Rick and he has known them for over 10 years. He met Bob while in county jail where Bob was serving time for drug possession and distribution. He states that Bob no longer sell drugs because he now works in construction. Bob does use his former connections, however, to procure marijuana to smoke. Bob has an order of protection against him for calling the victim repeatedly to relay messages from Mr. Rose which was a violation of a court non-communication order. Mr. Rose met Steve through Bob. Steve owns the garage where they spend a majority of their time. Steve also lives in the same apartment building as the victim. Mr. Rose states that Steve “keeps an eye on her for me”. Neither Bob nor Steve believe that the current offense happened but have stated that if it did, it was instigated by the victim.

Mr. Rose has limited contact with his parents. He at one time lived with them while on supervised release but said that they “kept trying to control me and gave me a curfew like a child”. The parents stated that their son took advantage of their living arrangement and refused to pay for expenses, stole, damaged property and had loud parties. They stated that they only wanted him to pay for any additional expenses, abide by the court ordered curfew and to seek counseling for alcohol. Mr. Rose stated that he has no intention of attending any type of treatment and could care less if he ever spoke to his family again.

Mr. Rose’s plans for the future are to “keep on keeping on” which he explained meant to return to the same community and pick up where he left off. He does not believe that there is any aspect of his behavior that he needs to change and that his difficulties are the result of law enforcement “picking on me and getting me for minor crap”. Mr. Rose takes no responsibility for his offenses and describes them as not serious and the fault of others instigating him. When asked about his relationship difficulties Mr. Rose does claim total responsibility for any problems. He states that he has been “too giving” and this has allowed his partners to make a fool out of him and to “get out of hand”. He stated that in the future he will be more careful about whom he dates. When asked about the future of any interactions with the victim he stated that he “would have to wait and see what she is up to”. Mr. Rose was not able to articulate whether he thought he would attempt to continue his relationship with the victim and stated, “My lawyer says I shouldn’t talk about that.”

 

Case Consult Report: Mr. Rose.

Risk Assessment Instrument

One of the most frequent aspects of forensic mental health is answering the questions of risk, needs and responsivity of a forensic client. In the criminal justice field this is most often focused on whether a person will recidivate (commit another or a similar crime), whether they will respond to treatment and what type of treatment needs should be addressed. You have already read about and discussed risk assessment of clients and will be familiar with the term criminogenic needs which are important when determining risk to re-offend. Additionally offenders that have committed a sexual offense need to be assessed for specific characteristics associated with sexual offender recidivism.

Criminogenic needs:

Anti-social personality
Anti-social attitudes and values
Anti-social associates
Family dysfunction
Poor self control and poor problem solving skills
Substance abuse
Lack of employment/employment skills
Sex offender specific needs:

Hostility towards women
Deviant sexual interest
Sexual pre-occupation
Emotional identification with children
When reviewing the case please address the following risk domains:

Employment/Education
Substance abuse
Marital/Family relations
Associates and Social Interaction
Community Functioning
Personal/Emotional orientation
Attitude
Sex Offender Specific
EMPLOYMENT

Factors Considered: This domain deals with the role of work in the offender’s life. Needs indicators include employment history, if any; positive and negative aspects of work history (such as job performance, absenteeism, unstable work record, having been fired, inability to earn sufficient salary to live on, having difficulty with co-workers and/or superiors), educational deficiencies (including intelligence, learning disabilities), and vocational skills).

SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Factors Considered: This domain is concerned with an offender’s problems, if any, with alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and with any prior treatment programs. It includes details concerning the substance abuse, the extent to which alcohol or other drugs interfered with the offender’s pro-social experiences (such as marital/family relations, employment, and social situations), and information about prior substance abuse treatment programming.

MARITAL/FAMILY

Factors Considered: This domain is concerned with an offender’s family relationships. Needs indicators include relationships with parents and siblings, absence of parents, history of family abuse and/or criminality, marital history, dependants, parenting skills, and involvement in child abuse.

ASSOCIATES/SOCIAL INTERACTION

Factors Considered: This domain focuses on the characteristics and qualities of the offender’s interactions with others, particularly the offender’s peer group(s). Anti-social associates and interaction patterns are of special interest. Needs indicators include the extent to which the offender interacts with and is influenced by others with a pro-criminal lifestyle, gang membership, and interactions with others characterized by predation.

COMMUNITY FUNCTIONING

Factors Considered: This domain considers the offender’s capability for functioning adequately in the community. The domain covers a wide range of community living skills: stable, well-maintained place of residence, health, hygiene and nutrition, financial management skills, appropriate leisure time activities, and awareness of available social assistance programs.

PERSONAL/EMOTIONAL ORIENTATION

Factors Considered: This domain covers a multi-faceted and wide range of personal and emotional need factors that have been shown to be predictive of criminal and recidivistic behavior. This dimension includes needs that fall into three major categories:

Cognitive defects, which include problem-solving, inter-personal relationship skills, inability to understand the feelings of others, and narrow, rigid thinking.
Behavioral problems, including behaviors likely to result in negative consequences, such as impulsivity, risk-taking, aggression, anger, frustration tolerance and gambling.
Personal Characteristics, which may increase the likelihood that the offender will be involved in criminal behavior (e.g., personality dispositions, behavioral preferences [including inappropriate sexual attitudes or preferences], and mental status characteristics).
ATTITUDE

Factors Considered: This domain considers the characteristics and extent of the offender’s pro-social and anti-social attitudes. It is concerned with favorable attitudes toward crime and violence and minimization of the impacts of criminal behavior and disregard for convention, the justice system, and the rights of others.

SEX OFFENDER SPECIFIC

Factors Considered: This domain considers the characteristics and extent of the sex offender’s specific risk for recidivism. It is concerned with hostile attitudes towards women (regardless if the victim was a female or an adult), the extent of the offenders interest in deviant sexual practices (either admitted or known through criminal history), how much time the offender spends in sexual activity (engaging in sex, viewing porn, going to strip clubs, talking about sex with others), and the emotional identification with children which can be recognized in an offender’s dress, hobbies, interests, media preferences and ideas about childhood and children (this factor is not considered if the offender has no child [under 14] victims).