# data[].attributes.body
1. What are the advantages of automation?
- High degree of consistency of inter-rater reliability
- Higher cost-benefits of using MnSTARR
(Duwe & Rocque, 2017)
- Different from other risk assessments (eg. COMPAS) as they have a 'multiband' instrument that categorises male and female, instead of being inclusive of both (Duwe, 2014).
- High objectivity as it is automated.

2. What are the disadvantages?
Predictive validity is lower, as scores on MnSTARR are higher compared to that of manual scoring (Duwe & Rocque, 2017).

# data[].attributes.body
1. What are the advantages of automation?

High internal validity (in Minnesota Prison)

Cost effective

Objective

2. What are the disadvantages?

Low external validity

Does not predict recidivism for all types of offending.

It is not possible to link with needs, therefore we are unable to produce conditional risk statements.

Certain correctional facilities might not have the IT infrastructure to support the test.

3. Do you think automation is a good idea?
It might be for certain offences (perhaps petty crimes), but for the major felonies, it might not be the best idea?

4. Do you think clinicians or computers are more likely to make correct decisions?
a
5. If you were an advisor to the Singapore Government, would you advocate clinical, actuarial, SPJ or fully automated risk assessment?
a

# data[].attributes.body
1. Has Kevin been violent?

Yes.

2. What are his attitudes towards violence?

He seems to be trivialising the violence. He does not view it as a serious, alluding it as being normal.

3. What about his ability to perspective-take?

He lacks the empathy to view his wife's perspective.

4. Does he take responsibility for his behaviour? What justifications does he use?

No, he does not. "It's normal, she fell over because she had too much to drink. She's making a big deal out of it.'

5. What might be relevant static or predisposing factors in this case?

Family history of violence; demographic differences; low EQ.

6. What might be relevant dynamic factors (eg. disinhibitors)?

Alcohol; maybe lack of personal support.

7. What is his attitude towards treatment?

He is uncertain and dismissive towards treatment. He is pushing the blame on his wife.

8. What does this tell you about his risk? To whom might he be a risk?

High risk boiboi. To himself and his family.

9. Other than your clinical judgement, what kind of formal risk assessment tool could you use to evaluate the risk Kevin poses to others? What kind of information would you need?

• Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)
• Danger Assessment (DA)
• Domestic Violence Screening Inventory (DVSI)
• Kingston Screening Instrument for Domestic Violence (K-SID)
• Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA)
You probably need to ask the wife since he feels like it is a normal thing.

10. What could you do to manage his risk?

Personal counselling and couples counselling.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Has Kevin been violent?

Yes. He has admitted to pushing and hitting his wife on multiple occasions.
2. What are his attitudes towards violence?

He does not see the severity of the issue, he describes it as "little bit of pushing and shoving". Therefore, it indicates that he does not take the issue as seriously as Lydia.
3. What about his ability to perspective-take?

He does not see the situation from Lydia's perspective and does not understand why it is serious enough for her to talk to a psychologist or even give him an ultimatum.
4. Does he take responsibility for his behaviour? What justifications does he use?

No, he does not take responsibility. He tries to shift the responsibility on alcohol or brushes it off as things that happen in any relationship - 'couples have arguments'.
5. What might be relevant static or predisposing factors in this case?

Through the conversation, it might be implied that he does not see violence in a relationship as that serious of a problem, as he describes it as 'pushing and shoving'. Therefore, he may have been violent previously as well, but it is not clearly stated.
6. What might be relevant dynamic factors? (eg. Disinhibition)

Alcoholism; as there is always alcohol involved. When asked how often alcohol is a factor, he says 'most of the time'.
7. What is his attitude towards treatment?

He does not see it as necessary but he is willing to do it to keep the family together. It is not because he sees it as a problem but mostly due to the fact that Lydia has given him an ultimatum.
8. What does this tell you about his risk? To whom might he be a risk?

There is a high risk of violence towards his wife and children if he continues to drink and have arguments with his wife.
9. Other than your clinical judgment, what kind of formal risk assessment tools could you use to evaluate the risk Kevin poses to others? What kind of information would you need?

- SARA and other actuarial or SPJ violence risk assessments are appropriate. Many domestic violence risk assessments lack reliability and validity.
10. What could you do to manage his risk?

He would benefit from an anger management therapy, (group or
CBT) to address his cognitive distortions as well as improving empathy. He should also abstain from alcohol.

# data[].attributes.body
K met a woman in a nightclub. They got chatting and she invited him back to her house for a quick drink. They began to kiss and ended up in the bedroom. He pressured her into having sex but she said no. He then raped her. During the 🤬 she remained quiet and did not say anything so he said she must have enjoyed it. When questioned, K said that she'll be okay because "she clearly wanted to have sex" as she invited him back to her place, which gave him the green light. He also said that "there's no way it could be 🤬" as she never screamed or complained or anything like that.

-Minimising the fact that she said "no" and that they had a few drinks
-It boils down to verbal consent, which was not given in this situation. So we would ask him, why did he continue on even after he heard her say 'no'?

# data[].attributes.body
Should surgical or chemical castration be an option for repeat sexual offenders?

Should the procedure be mandatory or optional?

Chemical castration should be mandatory for serial cases.

Is it a treatment, a punishment, or both?

Both.

Treatment--> it will help reduce their libido/urges.

Punishment --> They are not receive sexual gratification anymore. And they cannot procreate any more.

What are the intended outcomes?

it will help reduce their libido/urges.

They are not receive sexual gratification anymore. And they cannot procreate any more.

What does the evidence say?

What are the moral arguments for and against?

# data[].attributes.body
How do people justify:

1: Using their phones whilst driving
-' I know what I am doing.'
-'It's okay, I've got this.'
2. Smoking
-'I don't smoke that often'
-'I can always quit when I want to.'

3. Spending a lot money on an expensive item
-' I'm only getting one item. I don't buy a lot of the things.'
-' TREAT YO SELF'
4.Not going to the gym/ taking exercise
-'I can do it another time'
-'Exercise is for losers'
-'Who has time for this 🤬?'
-'I've ran 20 miles in game, I don't need to run anymore.'

5. Skipping class
-'I can ask my friends for help.'
-' My attendance is fineeeeeeeeeee.'
-'One class is fineeeeeeeee.'
-'I've got another assignment due.'
-'The class is boring.'
6. Pirating software
-'Its anonymous, I wouldn't get caught'
-' It's the ghetto lyfe!'
-'Everyone else does it, it is okay'
7. Being snarky and short-tempered with someone.
-

# data[].attributes.body
1. How do you feel about the idea of working with sex offenders?
-Generally we would be uncomfortable dealing with them. More so, if we are a part of their victim profile.
-

2. What would you find personally challenging about the work?
- Practising empathy and separating personal conflicts with job responsibilities. And controlling our emotions.
- Trying not to take what they say personally and get affected by it.
-
3. How might these issues affect the way you work with sex offenders?
- Being unable to empathise may affect the tone and body language that we are speaking to them in, leading to mistrust of the clients - ineffective counselling as the client may stop sharing

4. How might it affect your attitudes about other people?
- Becoming more cynical over time
- Hard to trust other people

5. How might it impact on other areas of your life?
-
6. What would help you cope with the difficulties in the work?
-Preparation before the session
-Debrief about  the case after the session.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Courts will now be able to order chemical castration for all rapists from Tuesday, as part of imposing tougher penalties against sex crimes.

Until now the hormone treatment has been a sentencing option only for child sex offenders, but can now apply to all convicted rapists through the legal revision, according to the Ministry of Justice Sunday. The treatment can also be ordered by a committee operating under the Ministry of Justice.

The bill, which was passed in December, comes into effect after a three-month legal probation, the ministry said. The ministry added that the new rule is also applicable for rapists who were convicted earlier.

According to the revised bill, rapists can be subject to up to 15 years of chemical treatment during sentencing or as part of their parole conditions. committee decisions are limited to three years.

In the first such sentence since the measure was first introduced in 2011, the Seoul Southern District Court earlier this year sentenced a repeated rapist of teenage girls to chemical castration. The court ordered the 31-year-old offender to undergo three years of chemical treatment as well as 200 hours of therapy and wear an electronic tracking ankle bracelet for 20 years.

The National Assembly in July 2011 passed a bill allowing the administration of libido-suppressing hormone medication for convicted child molesters who are over 19 years of age.

Advocates claim that the use of chemical castration is an effective and scientific method of reducing sexual crimes, while human rights activists and religious groups oppose it, saying it seriously infringes upon basic human rights.

The Constitutional Court is currently reviewing whether the chemical punishment is in violation of constitution and infringes basic human rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Korea expands use of chemical castration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Courts will now be able to order chemical castration for all rapists from Tuesday, as part of imposing tougher penalties against sex crimes. Until now the hormone treatment has been a sentencing option only for child sex offenders, but can now apply to all convicted rapists through the legal revision, according to the Ministry of Justice Sunday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE, Sept. 10 -- Most Singapore lawyers in a recent survey oppose a proposal to castrate repeat sex offenders in the island republic, the Straits Times newspaper reported Tuesday. Singapore's chief justice last week suggested the city-state, known for its strict laws and harsh punishment of criminals, should emulate a new California law requiring child molesters to take a potency-reducing drug or to have their testicles surgically removed. But a majority of lawyers questioned by the newspaper said they believed castration is too extreme and would not solve the problems of rape and child molestation. 'Many sex-type crimes happen without physical penetration,' attorney James Tan said. 'I read of a case in the United States where someone forced a child to watch pornographic films. Habitual pedophiles have deep-seated psychological problems that must be tackled.' Another lawyer, who has been practicing in Singapore for 16 years and declined to give his name, agreed. 'It will impinge on a lot of people's rights, not just (the offender's), such as the right of his wife to have kids.' One lawyer quoted in the survey, however, said castration might be effective for some offenders. 'The problem may be in their physical make-up, some hormonal imbalance,' attorney Francis Xavier said. 'Castration could help solve their physical defect.' Singapore, a safe and prosperous country known for its frequent use of flogging and executions for various crimes, currently punishes rapists, pedophiles and other sex offenders with lengthy prison terms and up to 24 strokes with a rattan cane.

While sentencing a child molester in court Thursday, Chief Justice Yong Pung How said he wished he could issue harsher punishment and referred to the California castration law. 'This may well be considered in places like Singapore,' he said. California's State Assembly Aug. 30 passed a bill requiring repeat child molesters to undergo 'chemical castration' or to submit themselves for surgery to remove their testicles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE, Sept. 10 -- Most Singapore lawyers in a recent survey oppose a proposal to castrate repeat sex offenders in the island republic, the Straits Times newspaper reported Tuesday. Singapore's chief justice last week suggested the city-state, known for its strict laws and harsh punishment of criminals, should emulate a new California law requiring child molesters to take a potency-reducing drug or to have their testicles surgically removed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Surgical castration of sex offenders, still practised by doctors in Germany, has been condemned as "degrading" in a human rights report.

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) acknowledges that it is rarely used but questions its effectiveness and whether each patient's consent is freely obtained. The Czech Republic, where the operation is used slightly more frequently, is the only other EU state to continue with the procedure.

In a response attached to the document, the German government insists the treatment is not a punishment but enables "suffering tied to an abnormal sex drive ... to be cured or at least alleviated".

The CPT criticism is contained within a report on Germany's adherence to the European convention of human rights, which outlaws torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.

One section explains that "Germany is one of the very few countries in Europe, where orchiectomy (surgical castration) may be applied in the context of treating of sexual offenders".

Under a German law dating back to 1969, the offender must give his consent, be informed about the implications and side-effects of castration and be informed about other treatments.

Patients must be over 25 and doctors must be sure that it will not lead to physical or psychologically adverse effects that are "disproportionate to the aspired aim of the intervention". In some cases, it requires "approval of the guardianship court (applicable only when the person concerned is not able to give a valid consent)", the report notes.

"Surgical castration appears to be quite rare, not only in Berlin but throughout Germany," it adds. During the last 10 years, the total number of surgical castrations of sexual offenders in Germany has been fewer than five per year.

Nonetheless, the CPT, which is part of the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, expresses its "fundamental objections to the use of surgical castration as a means of treatment of sexual offenders" on four grounds:

It has irreversible physical effects and removes a person's ability to procreate.

Surgical castration is not "in conformity with recognised international standards".

Testosterone levels may not be reduced and the presumed reduction in re-offending rates "are not based on sound scientific evaluation".

Consent may not always be free and informed. Patients or prisoners [may] "acquiesce rather than consent", believing it is the only way to avoid indefinite imprisonment.

The CPT concludes: "Surgical castration is a mutilating, irreversible intervention and cannot be considered as a medical necessity in the context of the treatment of sexual offenders ... Surgical castration of detained sexual offenders could easily be considered as amounting to degrading treatment. The committee calls for the practice to be discontinued.

But the German government defends the procedure on the grounds that surgery helps where "illnesses connected to an abnormal sex drive must be treated, or in order to counter the risk of future unlawful offences being committed by sexual offenders and/or violent offenders, and to thus assist the person affected in managing his life in the future.

"As far as the federal government is aware, there are quite a number of scientific studies on the criminological long-term effects of surgical castration."

A 1997 study, it maintains, followed up the history of 104 sexual offenders "who subjected themselves to castration in the decade between 1970 and 1980. Their reoffending rate was 3%, the German authorities explained, as opposed to 46% for a control group.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Human rights groups call for end to surgical castration of sex offenders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Surgical castration of sex offenders, still practised by doctors in Germany, has been condemned as "degrading" in a human rights report. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) acknowledges that it is rarely used but questions its effectiveness and whether each patient's consent is freely obtained.