Risk Analiz Yöntemlerinin Psikoloji Temelli Değerlendirilmesi: Gençler Arasında Şiddet İçeren Radikalleşme Risk Analiz Örneği

Year 2021, Volume: 9 Issue: 23, 5 - 21, 30.04.2021

Ahmet Demirden

Abstract

Kuramsal ve yöntemsel olarak iyi yapılandırılmış adli risk analizleri uygulayıcılara sistematik ve delile
dayalı öngörüler sunma işlevini yerine getirebilirler. Diğer taraftan etkili bir şekilde yapılandırılmamış
risk analiz uygulamaları ise yüksek riskli hükümlülerin erken tahliye edilmeleri veya düşük risk
grubunda bulunan gençlerin özgürlüklerine gereksiz sınırlamalar getirilmesi gibi ciddi sorunlara
neden olabilmektedir. Dolayısıyla risk analiz araçlarının kanıt temelli yöntemlerle tasarlanması
olası risklerin etkin bir şekilde yönetilebilmesi için büyük önem taşımaktadır. Literatürde yapılan
araştırmalara göre risk analizleri genel olarak araçsız uzman görüşleri, aktüeryal risk analizleri ve
yapılandırılmış uzman risk muhakemelerini içeren yöntemler kullanılarak yapılandırılmaktadır. Bu
üç yöntem arasında birçok farklılıklar bulunmakla birlikte en önemli ayrışma nesnellik ve öznellik
boyutundadır. Araçsız uzman görüşleri tam anlamıyla öznel profesyonel tecrübe ve değerlendirilen
kişi ile ilgili bilgilere dayanan öngörüleri içermektedir. Kontrol listelerindeki risk faktörlerinin
değerlendirildiği aktüeryal risk analizleri uygulayıcıların kişisel görüşlerine yer vermeyen nesnel
öngörüleri kapsamaktadır. Diğer taraftan, yapılandırılmış uzman muhakemelerinde ise risk
göstergeleri uygulayıcılara sistematik olarak riskleri belirleme ve yorumlamalarında yol gösterme
işlevini yerine getirmektedir. Bu çalışmada, farklı risk analiz yöntemlerinin güçlü ve zayıf yönleri
karşılaştırılacak olup; sonrasında ise gençler arasında şiddet içeren radikalleşme hususuna yer
verilerek, risk analizi bağlamında tartışılmaktadır. Gençler arasındaki şiddet içeren radikalleşme
riskinin ayrışık ve belirsiz yapılı riskleri içermesi nedeniyle aktüeryal veya araçsız uzman görüşü
yöntemlerine karşın yapılandırılmış uzman muhakemelerinin daha sistematik ve delile dayalı
öngörüler sunabileceği iddia edilebilir.

Keywords

Gençler Arasında Şiddet İçeren Radikalleşme Riski, Risk Analiz Yöntemleri, Yapılandırılmış Uzman Risk Analizleri

The Examination of Risk Analysis Methods Based on Psychology: The Case of Violent Radicalization Risk Among Youth

Abstract

Conceptually and methodologically well-structured forensic risk analysis can provide practitioners
with systematic and evidence-based predictions. On the other hand, poorly designed risk assessments
might result in serious consequences, such as the premature release of high risk offenders from
custody or, conversely, having low-risk juvenile offenders suffering unnecessary restrictions on their
freedoms as a result of ineffective risk assessment tools. Thus, it is imperative that risk assessments
be evidence-based in order to ensure the effective management of risks. In the literature, risk
assessments are designed based on the following three methods: unaided professional judgments,
actuarial approach, and structured professional judgments. Though there are many differences in these
methods, the most important pertains to objectivity and subjectivity. Unaided professional judgments
involve risk predictions based solely on the subjective professional experiences and knowledge of
the individual being assessed. Actuarial tools use a highly prescriptive and objective method to risk
assessment based on checklists of risk indicators without taking into account practitioners’ expert
opinions. In structured professional judgments, on the other hand, the identified evidence-based risk
predictors serve to guide the assessor via a process of systematically identifying and interpreting risks.
In this paper, the strengths and limitations of different risk assessment methods are discussed, after
which a conceptually based discussion is presented on risk assessments as they pertain to juvenile
violent radicalization risk. Compared to unaided professional judgments or actuarial approaches,
structured professional judgments might constitute a more effective method in assessing the risk of
juvenile violent radicalization due to the heterogeneous nature of the threat.

Keywords

Juvenile Violent Radicalization, Risk Assessment Methods, Structured Professional Judgments, Structured Professional Judgments

References

• Buchanan A. (2008). Risk of violence by psychiatric patients: beyond the "actuarial versus clinical" assessment debate. Psychiatric Services, 59(2), 184-190. htpps://doi:10.1176/ps.2008.59.2.184
• Cole, J., Alison, E., Cole, B., & Alison, L. (2013). Guidance for identifying people vulnerable to recruitment into violent extremism. The University of Liverpool. Retrieved from https://preventforfeandtraining.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/IVP_Guidance_Draft_v0.3_web_version.pdf
• Constantinou, A. C., Freestone, M., Marsh, W., & Coid, J. (2015). Causal inference for violence risk management and decision support in forensic psychiatry. Decision Support Systems, 80, 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.09.006
• Crenshaw, M. (1981). The Causes of Terrorism. Comparative Politics, 13(4), 379-399. https://doi:10.2307/421717
• Çukur, C., Ş. (2019). Uygulamalı sosyal psikoloji: Temel kavramlar, ilkeler ve yöntem. C. Ş. Çukur ve G. Sayılan (Ed.), Uygulamalı Sosyal Psikoloji içinde (ss. 3-51). Ankara: Nobel.
• Douglas, K., Hart, S., Webster, C., Belfrage, H., Guy, L., & Wilson, C. (2014). Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20 V3): Development and Overview. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 13, 93-108. htpps://doi:10.1080/14999013.2014.906519
• Doyle, M. (2012). Risk Research. In Sheldon, K. (Ed.), Davies, J. (Ed.), Howells, K. (Ed.), Research in Practice for Forensic Professionals (p. 37-59). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805329
• Doyle, M. & Dolan, M. (2006). Evaluating the validity of anger regulation problems, interpersonal style, and disturbed mental state for predictions inpatient violence. Behavioral Sciences and Law, 26(6), 783-798. https://doi:10.1002/bsl.739
• Doyle, M. & Dolan, M. (2008). Understanding and managing risk. In K. Soothill (Ed), P. Rogers (Ed), & M. Dolan (Ed), Handbook of forensic mental health, (Ch.10). Cullompton: Willan.
• Ennis, B. J. & Emeri, R. D. (1978). The rights of mental patients. New York: Avon Books.
• Faust, D. & Ziskin, J. (1988). The Expert Witness in Psychology and Psychiatry. Science New Series, 241(4861), 31-35. https://doi:10.1126/science.3291114
• Fernandes, R., Hatfield, J., & Soames Job, R. F. (2010). A systematic investigation of the differential predictors for speeding, drink-driving, driving while fatigued, and not wearing a seat belt, among young drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 13(3), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2010.04.007
• Goodstein, L. (2015, November 1). F.B.I. tool to identify extremists is criticized. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
• Guy, L. S., Packer, I. K., & Warnken, W. (2012). Assessing risk of violence using structured professional judgment guidelines. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 12(3), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2012.674471
• Hart, S., Michie, C., & Cooke, D. (2007). The precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: evaluating the ‘margins of error’ of group v. individual predictions of violence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(49), 60-65.
• Helmus, L., Hanson, R. K., Babchishin, K. M., & Thornton, D. (2015). Sex offender risk assessment with the Risk Matrix 2000: Validation and guidelines for combining with the STABLE-2007. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 21(2), 136-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2013.870241
• Horgan, J. (2005). The psychology of terrorism. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
• Horgan, J. (2012). Discussion point: The end of radicalization? Retrieved from National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism website: http://www.start.umd.edu/news/discussion-pointend-radicalization
• Hug, A. (2010). Modeling terrorist radicalization the new face of discrimination: Muslims in America. Duke forum for law and social change, 39, 41-69.
• Imran Awan & Mohammed Rahman (2016) Portrayal of Muslims Following the Murders of Lee Rigby in Woolwich and Mohammed Saleem in Birmingham: A Content Analysis of UK Newspapers, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 36(1), 16-31. https://doi.10.1080/13602004.2016.1147151
• ISCP (2014). Report on the intelligence relating to the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby. London, UK: Williams Lea Group.
• Kebbell, M. R., & Porter, L. (2012). An intelligence assessment framework for identifying individuals at risk of committing acts of violent extremism against the West. Security Journal, 25(3), 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2011.19
• McCauley, C. (2013). Ideas versus actions in relation to polls of U.S. Muslims. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 70–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/asap.12014
• McCauley, C., & Moskalenko, S. (2011). Friction: How radicalization happens to them and us. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 783-792.
• Neumann, Peter. (Eds.). (2008). Perspective on radicalization and political violence. London: International Centre for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence.
• NYPD. (2007). Radicalization in the West. The homegrown threat. New York: NYPD Intelligence Division.
• Pressman, Elaine & Flockton, John. (2012). Calibrating Risk for Violent Political Extremists and Terrorists: The VERA 2 Structured Assessment. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 14(4). https://doi:10.1108/14636641211283057
• Rae, J.A., 2012. Will it Ever be Possible to Profile the Terrorist? Journal of Terrorism Research, 3(2), p. none. http://doi.org/10.15664/jtr.380
• Retterberger, M., & Hucker, S. J. (2011). Structured professional guide-lines: International applications. In D. P. Boer, R. Eher, L. A. Craig, M. H. Miner, & F. Pfafflin (Eds.), International Perspectives on the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 85–110). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
• Roychowdhury, A., & Adshead, G. (2014). Violence risk assessment as a medical intervention: ethical tensions. The Psychiatric Bulletin, 38(2), 75-82. .https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.113.043315
• Sarma, K. M., Carey, R. N., Kervick, A. A., & Bimpeh, Y. (2013). Psychological factors associated with indices of risky, reckless and cautious driving in a national sample of drivers in the Republic of Ireland. Accident; analysis and prevention, 50, 1226–1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.09.020
• Sarma, K. (2017). “Risk Assessment and Prevention of Radicalization from Nonviolence into Terrorism. American Psychologist, 72(3), 278-288. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000121
• Silke, A. (2014). Risk assessment of terrorist and extremist prisoners. In A. Silke (Ed.), Prisons, Terrorism, and Extremism: Critical Issues in Management, Radicalization, and Reform (pp.108-121). Abington, UK: Routledge.
• Suedfeld, P., Cross, M. R. W., & Logan, M. C. (2013). Can thematic content analysis separate the pyramid of ideas from the pyramid of action? A comparison among different degrees of commitment to violence. In H. Cabayan, V. Sitterle, & M. Yandura (Eds.), Looking back, looking forward: Perspectives on terrorism and responses to it (Strategic Multi-Layer Assessment Occasional White Paper).
• Stampnitzky, Lisa. (2014). Disciplining Terror: How experts invented “Terrorism”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Storey, J. E., Gibas, A. L., Reeves, K. A., & Hart, S. D. (2011). Evaluation of a violence risk (threat) assessment training program for police and other criminal justice professionals. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(6),554-564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811403123
• Taylor, M. (2010). Is terrorism a group phenomenon? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 121–129.
• Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25(4), 41–78.