Probation Officer’s Risk Assessment Level for a Convict (John Ripley)
Due to the fact that he has never been convicted of a crime before, Mr. Ripley has a low risk of reoffending. He is a respected member of the community; thus, it is highly probable that he will make a positive difference. His age is taken into account while determining his level of low risk. Long et al. (2013) found that adults 35 and older who had never been convicted of a crime are less likely to commit one again. Mr. Ripley appears like a person who would not take the chance of committing another crime for fear of going to jail. He knows that going to jail would endanger his mother’s safety because she would be left without a caregiver. Additionally, according to Ly et al. (2018), because they have more empathic features than contact offenders, internet child pornography offenders like Mr. Ripley are less likely to transition to become hands-on offenders than contact offenders.
Conditions for probation.
First, without my consent, Mr. Ripley would not be permitted to use any internet-connected device—including a desktop computer, a laptop, a smartphone, etc. Such devices are not permitted in his home, workplace, or possession. When he visits my office for his routine check-in, I will give him a once-a-week opportunity to use the Internet under my supervision to check his e-mails. Inevitable situations like filing taxes would also let him use the computer. Internet censorship aims to prevent offenders from viewing child porn (Ly et al., 2018). Fortunately, he does not require the Internet for work because his position does not call for it.
Second, I would prohibit Mr. Ripley from interacting with kids unsupervised. It is a good thing he is childless because it means there will not be any kids living in the house he and his mother share. Restricting contact with children is essential because, according to Long et al. (2013), owning child pornographic material can eventually lead to someone becoming a contact offender. Due to the importance of being close to possible victims of sexual offenses, opportunity factors like volunteering, working with minors, or having children at home can promote sexual recidivism (Seto & Eke, 2015).
Thirdly, I would ensure Mr. Ripley receives the necessary psycho-sexual testing and treatment. Ly et al. (2018) claim that many internet child pornography offenders share the same psychological issues as contact offenders, even though most examinations and treatments are made for contact offenders. Without addressing these psychological issues, a criminal is more likely to commit new crimes or switch to contact criminal behavior. Internet child pornographers like Mr. Ripley can gain from the same type of evaluation and therapy provided to contact offenders. Intimacy deficits, lack of empathy, deviant sexual interests, self-regulation issues, criminality, and various co-morbid conditions like depression, anxiety, substance abuse, or post-traumatic stress disorder are addressed in treatment for offenders’ psychological needs and risk factors (Levenson, 2018).
Last but not least, I would say that Mr. Ripley’s name is entered on the national list of sexual offenders. He would be somewhat discouraged from committing crimes again because he knows what will happen if he is found. The sex offenders would assist society in identifying those who are likely to conduct additional sex-related offenses, enabling it to keep a close eye on them, particularly when they are among children (Levenson, 2018).
Levenson, J. S. (2018). Sex offender management policies and evidence-based recommendations for registry reform. Current Psychiatry Reports, 20(3), 21. https://doi- org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1007/s11920-018-0884-0
Long, M. L., Alison, L. A., & McManus, M. A. (2013). Child pornography and the likelihood of contact abuse: A comparison between contact child sexual offenders and noncontact offenders. Sexual Abuse, 25(4), 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063212464398
Ly, T., Dwyer, R. G., & Fedoroff, J. P. (2018). Characteristics and treatment of internet child pornography offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(2), 216–234. https://doi- org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.1002/bsl.2340
Seto, M. C., & Eke, A. W. (2015). Predicting recidivism among adult male child pornography offenders: Development of the child pornography offender risk tool (CPORT). Law and Human Behavior, 39(4), 416-429. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000128
We’ll write everything from scratch
You are a Probation Officer who has just been assigned the case below. Consider all the information below before responding.
Name: John Ripley
Marital status: Divorced, no children
Education: GED diploma
Employment: Employed as a Plumber with his uncle, who owns a small plumbing business
Residence: Ripley will be living with his elderly mother, who resides in an apartment building.
Prior Convictions: None
Current Conviction: After a credible tip, investigators confiscated Ripley’s desk computer and found over 12 images of child pornography depicting nude pictures of children younger than 10 years old in an electronic folder labeled “vacation.”
Given that he had no prior convictions, his age, employment status, and ties to the community, including caring for his elderly mother, the judge imposed a 5-year probation sentence.
Based on the information that has been provided, what level of risk would you classify Ripley, and then explain why?
Based on the risk level you have assigned to Ripley, what specific probation conditions would you set for him, and explain why? Consider every detail that has been provided, and remember that you must support your response with a minimum of three scholarly research studies.
"Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you A results."