Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology (한국심리학회지:법)

Korean Association of Psychology and Law (한국법심리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Recidivism prediction of sex offender risk assessment tools: STATIC-99 and HAGSOR-Dynamic

교정시설내 성범죄자 재범위험성 평가도구의 재범 예측: STATIC-99와 HAGSOR-동적요인을 중심으로

  • 윤정숙 (한국형사.법무정책연구원)
  • Received : 2022.07.08
  • Published : 2022.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Research on sex offense has shown that sex offenders are very heterogeneous. Sex offenders are heterogeneous in their probability of risk of recidivism. Some sex offenders are known to be much higher in their tendencies to reactivate than others. The study examined the predictive and explanatory power of static and dynamic risk factors in STATIC-99 and HAGSOR-Dynamic which have been used in Korean correctional facilities since 2014. STATIC-99 and HAGSOR-Dynamic showed moderate predictive accuracy for all crimes(AUC = .737, AUC = .597, respectively, ps < .001). However, when examining sex crime alone, only STATIC-99 predicted recidivism significantly(AUC = .743, p < .001). The incremental predictive power of HAGSOR-Dynamic was confirmed; the explanatory power of Model 2 comprising both static and dynamic risk factors were significant beyond Model 1 comprising only static factors(∆χ2= 12.721, p < .001), but this tendency was only applied to the model of all crimes. These findings were discussed with implications of practicing the sex offender assessment and treatment.

성범죄자의 재범 우려가 큰 가운데 특정 성범죄자들은 다른 성범죄자들에 비해 재범하는 경향이 더 높은 것으로 알려져 있다. 이에, 연구자들은 성범죄자의 재범을 예측하는 요인들을 규명하기 위해 노력해왔다. 본 연구에서는 현재 교정시설에서 사용하는 STATIC-99(정적 위험 요인 평가)와 HAGSOR-동적요인을 사용하여, 각 도구의 재범 예측력을 분석하였다. 분석 결과 STATIC-99와 HAGSOR-동적요인은 통계적으로 유의한 재범 예측력을 가진 것으로 나타났다(각각 AUC = .737, AUC = .597, ps < .001). 그러나 성범죄 재범에 대해서는 STATIC-99만 통계적으로 유의한 예측력을 보였다(AUC = .743, p < .001). 또한 HAGSOR-동적요인을 추가한 Model의 재범 예측에 대한 설명력은 STATIC-99만을 투입한 Model보다 통계적으로 유의한 수준에서 증가하는 것으로 나타나(∆χ2 = 12.721, p < .001), HAGSOR-동적요인의 증분적 재범 예측력이 확인되었다. 그러나 성범죄에 대한 증분적 재범 예측력은 확인되지 못하였다. 재범 위험성 평가 항목 중 정적 위험요인은 친족피해자를 제외한 모든 항목이 재범을 유의하게 예측하였으며, 동적 위험요인 중 범죄적 성격, 대인관계 공격성, 사회적지지(부족)이 재범에 영향을 미치는 것으로 분석되었다. 결과에 대한 함의와 현장에서 도구의 사용 문제, 개선 방향 등이 추가로 논의되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 윤정숙, 성유리, 이태헌 (2021). 교정시설내 경비처우등급 및 교정재범예측지표 개선 방안연구. 한국형사.법무정책연구원 연구총서.
  2. 윤정숙, 김민영, 이태헌 (2020). 교정시설내 성범죄자 심리치료프로그램 효과성 평가연구. 한국형사정책연구원 연구총서
  3. 이수정, 고려진, 박혜란 (2008). 한국 성범죄자 위험성 평가 도구 개발 및 타당도 연구. 형사정책연구, 19, 309-345.
  4. 이일현 (2014). EasyFlow 회귀분석. 한나래출판사.
  5. 조은경 (2010). 성폭력사범 재범위험성 평가척도 개발. 법무부 연구용역보고서.
  6. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct(4th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.
  7. Barbaree, H. E., Blanchard, R., & Langton, C. M. (2003). The development of sexual aggression through the life span: The effect of age on sexual arousal and recidivism among sex offenders. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 59-71.
  8. Boer, D. R., Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R., & Webster, C. D. (1997). Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk-20: Professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Mental Healty, Law, & Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
  9. Campbell, T. W. (2004). Assessing sex offenders; problems and pitfalls. Charles C Thomaspublisher: USA, Illinois.
  10. Eher, R., Matthes, A., Schilling, F., Haubner-MacLean, T., & Rettenberger, M. (2012). Dynamic risk assessment in sexual offenders using STABLE-2000 and the STABLE-2007: An investigation of predictive and incremental validity. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211403164
  11. Etzler S, Eher R, Rettenberger M. (2018). Dynamic Risk Assessment of Sexual Offenders: Validity and dimensional Structure of the Stable-2007. Assessment, 27(4), 822-839. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118754705
  12. Gendreau, P., Littel, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism; what works! Criminology, 24(4), 575-608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01220.x
  13. Hare, R. D. (1991). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
  14. Hart, S. D., & Boer, D. P. (2010). Structured professional judgment guidelines for sexual violence risk assessment: The sexual violence risk-20 (SVR-20) and risk for sexual violence protocol (RSVP). In R. K. Otto & K. S. Douglas (Eds.), Handbook of violence risk assessment (pp. 269-294). Milton Park: Routledge.
  15. Hanson, R. K. (2002). Recidivism and age: Follow-up data from 4673 offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1046-1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605-0201710-02
  16. Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.348
  17. Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. (2001). A structured approach to evaluating change among sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13(2), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320101300204
  18. Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Scott, T.-L., & Helmus, L. (2007). Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project (User Report No. 2007-05). Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety Canada.
  19. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005482921333
  20. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2003). Notes on the development of Static-2002. (Corrections Research User Report No. 2003-01). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
  21. Hepburn, J. & Griffin, L. M. (2004). An analysis of risk factors contributing to the recidivism of sex offenders on probation, (Document No. 203905), National Institute of Justice.
  22. Helmus, L., Babchishin, K. M., & Blais, J. (2012). Predictive accuracy of dynamic risk factors for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sex offenders: An exploratory comparison using STABLE2007. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(6), 856-876. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X11414693
  23. Knight, R. (1999). Validation of a Typology for Rapist. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(3), 303-330. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626099014003006
  24. Mann, R., Hanson, K., & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual Recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 2, 1-27.
  25. Rosenberg, R., & Knight, R. A. (1988). Determining Male Sexual Offender Subtypes Using Cluster Analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4(4), 383-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065346
  26. Robertiello, G., & Terry, K. J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex offender typologies. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 12(5), 508-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2007.02.010
  27. Seto, M, C. (2008). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: Theory, assessment, and intervention. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
  28. Soothill, K., Francis, B., Sanderson, B., & Ackerley, E. (2000). SEX OFFENDERS: SPECIALISTS, GENERALISTS-OR BOTH? A 32-year Criminological Study. The British Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/40.1.56
  29. Thornton, D. (2002). Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320201400205
  30. Thornton, D. (2006). Age and sexual recidivism: A variable connection. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18(2), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320601800202
  31. Thornton, D., Mann, R., Webster, S., Blud, L., Travers, R., Friendship, C., & Erikson, M. (2003). Distinguishing and combining risks for sexual and violent recidivism. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 225-235.
  32. Webster, C. D., Nicholls, T. L., Martin, M-L., Desmarais, M. A. & Brink, J. (2006), Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START): The case for a new structured professional judgment scheme. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 24, 747-766. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.737
  33. Webster, S. D., Mann, R. E., Carter, A. J., Long, J., Milner, R. J., O'Brien, M. D., & Ray, N. L. (2006). Inter-rater reliability of dynamic risk assessment with sexual offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(4), 439-452. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160500036889
  34. Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. (2001). Assessing Risk Among Sex Offenders in Virginia.