Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WORMITH, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by RUHL, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by WORMITH, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by RUHL, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Preventive Detention in Canada

J. S. WORMITH

Ministry of the Solicitor of Canada

MONIKA RUHL

University of Ottawa

The current investigation traces the development of special legislation for sexual offenders. Unlike many American jurisdictions, Canada continues to use preventive detention as a means of control for both physically and sexually violent offenders. Survey data on all 97 persons held as dangerous sexual offenders in Canada were used to evaluate complaints found in the literature. Charges of inconsistent application were substantiated in that regional and socioeconomic disparity was revealed. The disproportionate use of DSO designations for child molesters was also noted. Complaints of poor reliability were supported, both in terms of sexual assessment results and clinical opinions about the status of individual DSOs. Findings pertaining to the difficulty of predicting future behavior were mixed. Predictive instruments suggested that DSOs were low-risk offenders compared to the general inmate population. However, those who were incarcerated at the time of the study were uniformly high-risk DSOs. Moreover, a simple retrospective psychometric clinical prediction strategy was reasonably accurate (77%) in predicting postrelease recidivism. Objections to the lack of treatment in prison and the community were partially supported. Preventive detention is also discussed in its sociopolitical context.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 1, No. 4, 399-430 (1986)
DOI: 10.1177/088626086001004002
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?