Abstract
We are currently living through tempestuous times where the new currents in Spanish Criminal law seem to be leading us towards a progressive abandonment of the guarantee-based paradigm and a definite approximation towards the paradigm of dangerousness. The issues of criminal dangerousness and its treatment are highly topical, and the assessment of risk seems a difficult issue to resolve insofar as there may be a conflict of rights in the always disheartening struggle between freedom and security. The question for debate is whether it would be advisable to introduce to our legal systems in Spain actuarial techniques, which could contribute to making better predictions as to the degree of dangerousness of dangerous individuals.
Thanks to the Faculty of Legal and Social Sciences of Toledo (UCLM) for its financial support.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As Wacquant (2010, p. 63) points out ‘the paedophile has become the vile incarnation of any threat to the integrity of the family and is feared to the same extent that the family is subjected to the hardships caused by the informalisation of employment. In short, it is “the other”, the enemy to beat and whom we depersonalise in order objectify’.
- 2.
For a critical analysis of the concept of dangerousness, see Andrés-Pueyo (2013).
- 3.
Monahan points to two studies carried out on the validity of the predictions of clinical judgment. In one of them it was found that only 39% of the defendants who had a medium-high risk of reoffending committed crimes in the following two years, while 26% of those classified as low risk committed a crime. With respect to the other study to which Monahan alludes, of the patients with a predicted high risk of recidivism, one in two committed an offence, and one in three of those classified as low risk or no risk of recidivism committed a violent criminal offence.
- 4.
For Padfield (2010, p. 7), it is imperative to clarify who is an expert in the assessment of dangerousness and if a psychiatrist is more qualified than anyone else to predict dangerousness, in principle because the very concept of dangerousness is basically a political and flexible label. In addition, the experts must be independent, and the affected people must have the right of access to independent reports and experts. Third, since the subject is eminently subjective, the assessments must be carried out with caution, and the judges or other institutions that use these reports must be warned of the weaknesses inherent in any future prediction made by an expert.
- 5.
- 6.
Pre-trial detention is regulated by Articles 502 and 503 of the Criminal Procedure Act (henceforth CPA), as a deprivation of the fundamental right to liberty (Article 17 of the Constitution), meaning that it is exceptional and will only be imposed when there are no other less burdensome measures applicable to the case, and the repercussions for the life of the individual that the measure will produce must always be considered; that is, in accordance with the principles of exceptionality (since the favor libertatis or in dubio pro libertatis governs), that of proportionality, to which we have already alluded, and the principle of judiciality; it must be imposed by the judge or magistrate examining or judging; and the principle of provisionality, by which said prison must be reviewed as the circumstances that justified its imposition change (STC 128/1995 of 26th July).
The judge must weigh up whether to establish pre-trial detention between the favor libertatis and the possible danger of escape, destruction of evidence or of acting against the victim/witness. Furthermore, the second paragraph alludes to the possibility of the accused reoffending, always concurrently with the first and second requirements, together with the seriousness of the crime already committed and those that they could commit, concluding that the requirement of two years in prison is not even necessary, as long as it can be inferred from the court records that they are a habitual criminal or that they collaborate with others in an organised way to commit crimes.
- 7.
By neurosciences, we refer to the disciplines that study ‘the development, structure, function, pharmacology and pathology of the nervous system’, see Mora and Sanguinetti (2004, p. 173).
- 8.
This instrument (SARA), owned by the British Columbia Institute on Family Violence, is used to predict the risk of violent manifestation of domestic abusers with respect to their partner or ex-partner. Its second version has been adapted in Spain by the Group for Advanced Studies in Violence of the University of Barcelona and analyses criteria of psychosocial adjustment, history of aggressions and living together as a couple. The contexts of application are both civil proceedings for custody, as well as criminal charges and assessment of the risk of violence or recidivism (Andrés Pueyo and Echeburúa 2010, p. 407). The Spanish adaptation is used in other Spanish-speaking countries as Chile (Gallardo and Concha-Salgado 2017).
- 9.
The Level of Service Inventory—Revised (LSI-R) is a quantitative tool, designed to be used on subjects aged 16 and over. It has 54 items and examines different characteristics of offenders and relevant situations in which they can be found to determine both the level of supervision and decisions regarding treatment, in the correctional or penitentiary environment. On its use in Spain, see Graña et al. (2014).
- 10.
See BCNROC. Repositori Obert de Coneixement de l'Ajuntament de Barcelona: RVD-BCN: protocol de valoració del risc de violència contra la dona per part de la seva parella o exparella). It has been made freely available to the public under the Creative Commons licence.
- 11.
Article 156.1 of the Prison Regulations, R.D. 190/96, of February 9th, states that: ‘The mandatory report of the Technical Team will be unfavourable when, due to the particular criminal trajectory, the anomalous personality of the inmate or the existence of unfavourable qualitative variables, breach of sentence, the commission of new crimes or a negative impact of the release on the prisoner from the perspective of their preparation for life in freedom or their individualised treatment programme are likely’.
- 12.
Available at: instruccion_3_2008.pdf (acaip.info) [last consultation date 17-9-22]. Previously established in Administrative Instruction 22/96, of December 16th, available at: INSTRUCCIÓN 22-96 permisos.doc (acaip.info) and Administrative Instruction 1/12, of April 2nd, available at: Instruccion_penitenciario_1_2012.pdf (igualdad.gob.es) [date of last consultation 17-9-22]. The latter Administrative Instruction has introduced two new special circumstances, the existence of administrative or judicial removal orders and the commission of crimes of gender-based violence.
In the cases of foreign convicts (non-EU and without legal residence) who also have an administrative or judicial removal order, as well as those who have committed serious crimes (punished with a prison sentence of more than five years), such specific circumstances and granting of permission will be assessed, the agreement must be specially justified and motivated so that the concurrence of such circumstances will not affect the risk of misuse or breach.
- 13.
This table consists of factors indicative of the risk of breach which could not be statistically validated. Cruz Márquez and Moya Guillem (2017, p. 6).
References
Andrés-Pueyo A (2013) La peligrosidad criminal: Análisis crítico de un concepto polisémico. In: Demetrio E, Maroto M (eds) Neurociencias y Derecho Penal. Edisofer S.L., Madrid, pp 483–503
Andrés-Pueyo A, Echeburúa E (2010) Valoración del riesgo de violencia: instrumentos disponibles e indicaciones de aplicación. Psicothema 22(3):403–409
Ansbro M (2010) The nuts and bolts of risk assessment: when the clinical and actuarial conflict. Howard J Crim Just 49(3):252–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2010.00614.x
Arbach-Lucioni K (2015) La práctica de la evaluación del riesgo de violencia en España. Revista de la Facultad de Medicina 63(3)
Arbach-Lucioni K, Andrés-Pueyo A (2016) Violence risk assessment practices in Spain. In: Singh JP, Bjørkly S, Fazel S (eds) International perspectives on violence risk assessment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 280–295
Armaza Armaza EJ (2013) El tratamiento penal del delincuente peligroso. Editorial Comares S.L., Granada
Cohen M, Groth A, Siegel R (1978) The clinical prediction of dangerousness. Crime Delinq 24:28–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112877802400103
Cruz Márquez B, Moya Guillem C (2017) Concesión de permisos de salida al agresor de género. Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología:1–40
Daffern M (2010) Risk assessment for aggressive behavior in personality disorder. In: Tennant A, Howells K (eds) Using time, not doing time. Practitioner perspectives on personality disorder and risk. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 15–32
Daunis Rodríguez A (2016) Criterios para la valoración de la peligrosidad y el riesgo en el ámbito penitenciario. Cuadernos de Política Criminal:239–280
Díez Ripollés JL (2015) Delitos y Penas en España. Los libros de la catarata, Madrid
Dresdner R, Gutiérrez O (2010) Los trastornos de comportamiento y cambios permanentes en la personalidad. In: Jarne A, Aliaga Á (eds) Manual de neuropsicología forense. Herder, Barcelona, pp 117–158
Echeburúa E, Amor PJ, Loinaz I, Corral P (2010) Escala de predicción del riesgo de violencia grave contra la parejarevisada (EPV-R). Psicothema 22(4):1054–1060
Férez Mangas D, Andrés Pueyo A (2016) Predicción y prevención del quebrantamiento de los permisos penitenciarios. Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica:1–28
Gallardo R, Concha-Salgado A (2017) Propiedades psicométricas del Manual para la Valoración del Riesgo de Violencia contra la Pareja (SARA) en agresores chilenos. Terapia Psicológica 35(2)
Garófalo R (1912) La Criminología. Estudio sobre la naturaleza del crimen y teoría de la personalidad. Daniel Jorro Editor, Madrid
Gisbert Calabuig JA (2005) Medicina Legal y toxicología. Masson, S.A., Barcelona
González-Tapia MI (2018) Derecho penal de la peligrosidad y neuropredicción: hacia un “Derecho penal individualizado”. In: Suárez JM, Barquín J, Benítez I, Jiménez MJ, Sáinz JE (eds) Estudios Jurídico Penales y Criminológicos. En homenaje al Dr. Dr. H. C. Mult. Lorenzo Morillas Cueva. Editorial Dykinson S.L., Madrid, pp 327–351
Graña JL, Andreu JM, Silva T, Pozuelo F, Ruiz A (2014) Evaluación de las propiedades psicométricas del LSI-R en una muestra penitenciaria. Psicopatología Clínica, Legal y Forense 14(2014):7–23
Harcourt B (2007) Against prediction, profiling, policing and punishing in actuarial age. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Janus E, Prentky R (2003) Forensic use of actuarial risk assessment with sexual offenders: accuracy, admissibility and accountability. Am Crim Law Rev 40(4):1443–1499
Jiménez Gómez F, Sánchez Crespo G, Merino Barragán V, Ampudia Rueda A (2014) Evaluación de la peligrosidad en la población penitenciaria. Ratio Legis Ediciones, Salamanca
Levenson J, Morin J (2006) Factors predicting selection of sexually violent predators for civil commitment. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 50(6):609–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X06287644
Marco Francia MP (2016) La peligrosidad criminal y las técnicas de prevención de riesgos: especial referencia a la delincuencia sexual peligrosa. Anuario de Derecho penal y ciencias penales:277–320
Monahan J (2006) A jurisprudence of risk assessment: forecasting harm among prisoners, predators, and patients. Virginia Law Rev 92(3):391–435
Monahan J (2010) Structured risk assessment of violence. In: Simon RI (ed) Textbook of violence assessment and management. American Psychiatric Publishing Inc., London
Mora F, Sanguinetti AM (2004) Diccionario de neurociencia. Alianza Editorial, Madrid
Moreno Rosset C (2005) Evaluación psicológica. Concepto, proceso y aplicación en las áreas del desarrollo y de la inteligencia. Editorial Sanz y Torres S.L., Madrid
Naharro ML, Soler J, Falcone D (2010) El rol del neuropsicólogo forense en los tribunales. In: Jarne IA, Aliaga Á (eds) Manual de neuropsicología forense. De la clínica a los tribunales. Herder, Barcelona, pp 13–45
Padfield N (2010) The sentencing, management and treatment of the ‘dangerous’ offenders. In: Final report. European Committee on crime problems, Council for Penological Co-operation. Council of Europe, Strasbourg
Pérez Ramírez M, Redondo Illescas S, Martínez García M, García Forero C, Andrés Pueyo A (2009) Assessing risk of recidivism in sex offenders. Psychol Spain 13(1):55–61
Rivera Beiras I (2015) Actuarialismo peniteciario. Su recepción en España. Revista Crítica Penal y Poder:102–144
Rodríguez A, López JM, Andrés Pueyo A (2002) Personalidad y comportamiento penitenciario. Psicothema 14(supl):90–100
Romeo Casabona CM (1986) Peligrosidad y Derecho Penal preventivo. Bosch, Barcelona
Seto M (2008) Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: theory, assessment, and intervention. American Psychological Association, Washington
Storey JE, Watt K, Jackson K, Hart S (2012) Utilization and Implications of the Static-99 in practice. Sex Abuse J Res Treat 24:289–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211423943
Tiffon Nonis BN (2009) Manual de actuación profesional en Psicopatología clínica, criminal y forense. Librería Bosch, Barcelona
Urruela Mora A (2009) Las medidas de seguridad y reinserción social en la actualidad. Editorial Comares, Granada
Van Zyl Smit D, Spencer J (2010) The European dimension to the release of sentenced Prisoners. In: Padfield N (ed) Release from prison. European policy and practice. Willan, Abingdon, pp 9–48
Villanueva Cañadas E, Valenzuela Garach A (2005) La prognosis criminal. In: J. A. Gisbert Calabuig, Medicina legal y toxicología. (Sexta edición. Reimpresión ed.), Masson, S.A., Barcelona, pp 1085–1093
Wacquant L (2010) Castigar a los pobres. El gobierno neoliberal de la inseguridad social. Gedisa editorial, Barcelona
Walker N (1996) Dangerous people. Blackstone Press Limited, London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marco Francia, M.P. (2023). Why Do They Call It ‘Dangerousness’ When They Mean ‘Risk Assessment’? Using Risk Assessment in the Spanish Criminal Justice System. In: Demetrio Crespo, E., García Figueroa, A., Marcilla Córdoba, G. (eds) Crisis of the Criminal Law in the Democratic Constitutional State. Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13413-5_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13413-5_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-13412-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-13413-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)