Ms Jessica Gormley2, Dr Bruce Watt1, Dr Tyler Cawthray1
1Bond University, Robina, Australia, 2Problematic Behaviour Support Services, Richmond, Australia
Biography:
Jessica Gormley is a forensic psychologist, PhD candidate and founder and Director of Problematic Behaviour Support Services, where she leads a specialist forensic and clinical team who are as passionate as they are talented. Her doctoral research challenges prevailing approaches to the classification and differentiation of sexual offenders, examining the implications for theory, assessment and treatment. Jessica brings a clear, practical and evidence-informed perspective to complex forensic work. She is particularly committed to developing innovative, responsivity-focused forensic services that turn evidence into meaningful practice and better outcomes.
Abstract:
Post-sentence legislation requires forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to translate past conduct into a defensible prediction of future harm.
This requires clarity about the anticipated harm, how it may occur, and the evidentiary basis for that inference. Without such discipline, distinct pathways to harm may be collapsed into a single legal conclusion of dangerousness that appears more coherent than the evidence supports.
The literature offers little evidence that sexual offenders constitute a unitary population. For some, risk may be driven primarily by deviant sexual interests; for others, by broader patterns of violence and criminality. These are not interchangeable routes to harm. Yet actuarial approaches routinely place individuals with materially different treatment needs and management priorities within the same risk category.
Contemporary reviews caution that instruments such as the Static-99 were developed to rank groups by relative risk of sexual recidivism, not to estimate individual probability, establish legal dangerousness, or determine whether continued detention or supervision is justified. The central concern is therefore not only whether risk is over or underestimated, but whether the nature of that risk is correctly formulated.
Drawing on doctoral research examining whether offence variables can improve the classification and risk assessment of men who rape adult women, this presentation considers how group-level sexual-risk estimates may obscure individual heterogeneity in legal decision-making.
“High risk” is not a formulation; it is a conclusion in search of one. Defensible forensic opinion requires identifying the mechanisms and conditions through which harm may occur, and the interventions capable of disrupting those pathways.