Mr Sam Ardasinski1
1Corrective Services NSW, Sydney, Australia
Biography:
Sam Ardasinski is a Forensic Psychologist with longstanding expertise in risk assessment, with his current role entailing the provision of risk assessment reports for the NSW Supreme Court applications under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006. He has been trained in various forms of risk assessment and he is certified through the Society for the Advancement of Actuarial Risk Need Assessment (SAARNA) as an independent trainer in the STATIC-99R, STABLE-2007 and ACUTE-2007 risk assessment tools. He undertakes lecturing with the University of NSW (UNSW) in risk assessment for their M Psych (Forensic) Psychology program.
Abstract:
“There is a failure here that topples all our successes” (John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath).
Several Australian Acts permitting post-sentence continuing detention and extended supervision orders allow them to be revoked when “circumstances have changed sufficiently to render the order unnecessary” (NSW Act). However, few jurisdictions have been proactive in having such orders revoked when they are no longer necessary. Courts rely on forensic assessments of risk, but there are questions about how well dynamic risk assessment is being utilised by practitioners and trusted by the Courts as valid.
In NSW, well over 200 individuals have been made subject to an Extended Supervision Order (“ESO”); however, only four individuals have successfully had their ESOs revoked. The use of dynamic risk assessment as standard practice for many correctional systems is piecemeal. This is despite recent strong evidence that the latest dynamic risk assessment is the most predictive of sexual recidivism (Babchishin et al, 2024; in press). The need for repeated dynamic risk assessments is paramount to ensure that resources are directed at the highest risk cohort instead of individuals who have reached a ‘desistance threshold’ (Hanson, 2018) before their last year of supervision.
Case studies are analysed, to evaluate the characteristics of individuals whose ESOs were revoked prior to their expiry date, and whether any of these individuals subsequently went on to reoffend. A commentary on the nature of dynamic risk factors and the critical need for updated risk assessments by psychologists and psychiatrists to inform the legal process follows.