Menu
Menu
Summary:
Risk assessment tools. Under the definition of risk of violence, the tendency of a person to commit antisocial or criminal behavioral acts is established, in short, to predict dangerousness. The objective of the analysis is to establish the content of the risk assessment tools for radicalization under the methodological use of a bibliographic review of professionals in the field at an international level.
Words key:
Extremism violent. Tools of assessment of risk. Dangerousness. radicalization. Religious terrorism.
Abstract:
Under the definition of risk of violence, the tendency of a person to commit antisocial or criminal behavioral acts is established, in short, to predict the dangerousness. The objective of the analysis is to determine the content of risk assessment tools for radicalization under the methodological use of a literature review of professionals in the field at international level.
KeyWords:
Violent extremism. Risk assessment tools. Dangerousness. Radicalization. Religious terrorism.
Introduction
It is not the purpose of this analysis to establish a distinction between risk of violence and dangerousness, for the purposes of our study it is affirmed that they are correlated, since the risk of violence has the purpose of determining the tendency that a person has to be dangerous in the future. Simultaneously, both risk factors and protective factors will be taken into account, that is, those that favor the commission of the criminal act and those that reduce the probability of recidivism of the criminal subject, respectively. It goes without saying that we are dealing with a construct that offers degrees of probability, offering an advantage and a drawback, namely:
In the field of terrorism, there is talk of radicalization, but not all radicalization leads to terrorism. Although we can establish a risk of violence, a prediction1 based on the conduct and behavior of a subject who is 'suspected' of his future dangerousness as 'presumed religious terrorist'.
Without delving into whether we are dealing with a relative risk or an assumable risk, one of the risk assessment tools for radicalization will be analyzed below. Although the reader is made to know that it is not the only one, among the list we find2 the Guide to Extremism Risk, the Islamic radicalization, The Identification of Vulnerable People, Multiple Levels, among other. All of them put into practice in different countries, none at the national level. Here the use of risk assessment tools for radicalization is null, we only found a protocol for a preventive radicalization strategy for terrorism towards those who are serving their custodial sentence in prisons.
The Violent Extremism Risk Assessment is briefly discussed below:
The method Violent Extremism Risk Assessment (VERA), of Canadian origin (2009) is the first protocol designed to determine the risk assessment of terrorists; it has been put into practice on convicted terrorists, after its application the deficiencies have been determined and the appropriate revisions have been carried out, thus, in 2010 it gave rise to VERA-2 and, in 2016, to VERA-2r, identifying itself, in In the latter case, additional relevant and applicable motivational indicators for violent radicalization in men, women, and youth.
The method is applied in different European countries, among which Spain is not found, it is also applied in North America, Australia and Southeast Asia in a
variability of environments, that is, in radicalization, but it does not have to be religious terrorism, but in a context of extremism and violent radicalization, regardless of ideology.
In the context discussed here, this tool has been used for convicted religious terrorists and for foreign terrorist fighters and their families who have returned from fighting and being part of terrorist organizations.
The assessment tool assesses a subject's risk of beliefs, attitudes, and ideology related to violent extremism, as well as context, social intent, history and ability, subject commitment, and motivation. In short, it allows the planning of risk scenarios and trace risk routes and allows its application on militants of groups of organizations and lone actors. Refining the issue further, indicators are established under contrasted theoretical aspects:
It is made up of 5 domains and 34 indicators, plus 3 additional domains with 11 indicators.4:
A summary table of some of the items is established below:
Beliefs, attitudes and ideology |
|
1. Commitment to an ideology that
justifies violence
2. Perception of being victims of injustice 3. Dehumanization of selected targets and associated causes of injustice 4. Rejection of society and democratic values 5. Feeling of hate, anger, frustration, persecution, in relation to alienation 6. Hostility towards national identity 7. Lack of empathy and understanding towards those outside the group itself |
History, action and capacity |
|
8. Early exposure to or confrontation with a violent militant ideology
9. Network of family and friends involved in violent actions 10. Criminal record for violence 11. Tactical, (para)military and/or explosives training 12. Training in extremist ideology in your own country or abroad 13. Access to finance, funds, resources or organizational skills |
Commitment and motivation |
|
14. Legitimization of violence and murders for a higher cause (obligation
religious, glorification)
15. Criminal opportunism 16. Commitment to the group, ideological group membership (camararía) 17. Moral obligation, moral superiority 18. Motivated by excitement and adventure 19. Participation. Forced participation in violent extremism 20. Status, role 21. Striving for meaning (of life) |
Protection and risk mitigation |
|
22. Reinterpretation
23. Rejection as a means to achieve goals 24. Changing definitions 25. Participation in counter-extremism programs 26. Support for non-violence 27. Support for non-violence from relatives or important people |
Intention and social context |
|
28. Interested party
29. Identified objectives 30. Contact with extremists 31. Expressed intention to act for a reason 32. Expressed will or willingness to die for a cause or belief 33. Planning 34. Suggestible, susceptibility |
Source Own production from Violent Extremism Risk Assessment5
1 Monahan, J. (2018). Predictions of violence. In T. Grisso & S. L. Brodsky (Eds.), The roots of modern psychology and law: A narrative history (pp. 143). New York, NY: Oxford University Press
2 Borum, R. (2015). Assessing Risk for Terrorism Involvement. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management. 2(2), 63-87; Flockton, J. (2011). International Developments in Extremist Violent Risk Assessment and Management: Professional Development study trip to Canada 13-27 June 2010. Australasian Journal of Correctional Staff Development. 1-6.
3 Sageman, M. (2008). Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press
4 The original risk assessment tool consisted of 5 domains and 31 indicators.
5 Pressman, D.E., Duits, N., Rinne, T., Flockton, J.S. (2016). VERA-2R: A structured professional judgment approach. Utrecht: Nederlands Instituut voor Forensische Psychiatrie-Psychologie; Pressman, D.E. & Flockton, J. (2012). Calibrating risk for violent political extremists and terrorists; the VERA 2 structured assessment. The British Journal of Forensic Practice. 14(4), 237-251.
