How Expert Discourse Utilises Past Behaviour as a Predictor of Risk and Future Behaviour

Where, within the PSR documents, some young people were described by the narrator as having a risk level of low, medium, or high, others were described as being some risk, a significant risk, a potential risk or an apparent risk. The narrator aims to draw together an individual’s previous offending behaviour with a risk classification in order

to determine the level of risk an offender may potentially pose in the future. Another example of the way in which the narrator is able to predict future behaviour and its associated risk level can be found in discussions around an individual’s offending and their social history, for example:

‘After examining [Mia’s] offending and social history [Mia] currently poses a HIGH risk of reoffending’ (PSR document 23b, emphasis in original).

‘In terms of a risk of harm to others, although this is not considered high at present, the fact that [Cameron] has in the past carried weapons and has now assaulted a female partner suggests that the potential for further violence against a person, as well as anti-social behaviour cannot be discounted’ (PSR document 24b).

‘It is my assessment that the risk of reoffending is currently at a medium level. This is based upon consideration of his social and offending history…’ (PSR document 9a).

The statements above provide an example of the way in which the narrator discusses levels of risk in relation to previous events and behaviour, for example ‘although this is not considered high at present… the potential for further violence… cannot be discounted’ (PSR document 24b) and ‘the risk of reoffending is currently at a medium level. This is based upon consideration of his social and offending history…’ (PSR document 9a). The narrator describes how an individual’s social and offending history have been considered in order to determine whether or not an individual will offend again. The information regarding an individual’s past behaviour has been gathered together in an attempt to predict a potential risk level which has then been associated with future offending. This on the whole suggests that the narrator is able to subscribe to a practice that draws upon information and knowledge based upon past events and behaviour in order to determine or predict future events and behaviour.

170

Where assessment tools, such as OASys are implemented in an attempt to predict future behaviour it could be questioned to what extent do such mechanisms accommodate change in the individual? The following statement demonstrates the way in which some probation officers place an individual within a cycle of knowledge that fails to accommodate change ‘In my opinion, from [Freddie’s] previous convictions and knowledge of him, I would assess the risk of re-offending as high’ (PSR document 10b). The narrator describes how previous knowledge of the offender is used to form professional judgements about the individual, their past offending behaviour, and their future behaviour. It could be suggested that, because the narrator is in a position whereby they are able to gain access to information and refer to previously established knowledge about an individual they are also placed in a position that encourages judgements to be made on past behaviours in an attempt to predict future behaviour, for example ‘in my opinion’ (PSR document 10b). This omnipotent status, omnipotent in the sense that some individuals subscribe to a belief system that only the divine are able to predict the future and therefore only the divine can prevent or modify future events through supreme intervention, assures a sense of authority. Still, the question remains to be asked, how can an individual offender challenge the way in which they are perceived once they have been located within what could be described as a perpetuating or inescapable discourse, for example one probation officer described an individual as follows ‘[Aaron] is clearly a persistent offender, mainly matters relating to motor vehicles’ (PSR document 6b). This statement highlights the extent to which a probation officer’s professional judgement can be absolute in the sense that the individual being described is not only an offender but also described as someone who obviously persistently and endlessly offends. All of which lends itself to question, does an offender become involved in a cycle or pattern of offending behaviour or does an offender become located within an inescapable discourse?

Where above we can see that the OASys assessment tool has been utilised to implement historical information about past behaviours to predict associated risks of the future, the PSR documents also indicated that the OASys assessment tool can be employed to determine how a risk may manifest in the future particularly with regard to future offending behaviour, for example:

‘Should his current situation continue I feel that he is at high risk of committing minor offences to gain money as he has no legitimate income at the moment’ (PSR document 13a).

‘The risk presented would most likely be in the form of a minor public nature or damage to property’ (PSR document 8a).

‘It is likely that any future offending would be alcohol related and may manifest itself as expressive violence directed towards other young males’ (PSR document 22b).

Here the narrators describe how they envisage an individual’s level of risk may be a predictor of future behaviour; one young offender is predicted to be violent in the future as a result of alcohol issues, for example ‘It is likely that any future offending would be alcohol related’ (PSR document 22b) whereas another young offender is described as offending in the future as a direct result of having no financial income, for example I feel that he is at high risk of committing minor offences to gain money’ (PSR document 13a). As previously suggested, understanding behaviour in this way fails to accommodate change, which raises the question what benefit lies in the identification and classification of potential risks? And who benefits from the implementation of such practices?

7.6 How Expert Discourse Reconstructs Risky Behaviour as Manageable