PubMed · 13898340
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
T C GIBBENS. 1962. Shoplifting.. https://doi.org/10.1177/002581726203000102
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
A confession, when properly and fairly obtained, is powerful evidence against a suspect and will generally guarantee a conviction. There are a number of theoretical models that explain why suspects confess to crimes they have committed. In this chapter, the key models and the relevant empirical evidence are discussed. The evidence shows that sex offenders, and particularly child molesters, sometimes have a strong need to talk about their crimes due to the feelings of guilt and this gives the police an advantage. However, sex offenders also find it difficult to be open, honest and complete when interrogated due to the feelings of shame, which act to inhibit their motivation to confess. They are therefore torn between feelings of guilt, which encourages them to confess, and feelings of shame, which inhibit them from confessing. As a consequence, feelings of shame need to be overcome during the interrogation, which means that sex offenders need to be interviewed sensitively and skillfully. Any challenges need to be presented in a 'softly' fashion and with understanding of the perpetrator's perspective and emotional needs.
Clinical predictions of violence are a necessary part of clinical practice despite extensive literature validating the use of actuarial rather than clinical prediction. The current study examined clinicians' use of risk cues in predictions of violence. Clinicians identified several risk cues as significant in clinical assessments of risk, including a history of assaults, hostility, medication noncompliance, paranoid delusions, presence of psychosis, and family problems. However, further results indicated that clinician-endorsed risk cues lack predictive power in the present sample.
Examination of the available literature regarding the development of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA) reveals 2 theoretical factor structures on which the MacCAT-CA was based: one in which 3 lower-order constructs are proposed (understanding, reasoning, appreciation) and one in which 2 higher-order constructs are proposed (competence to assist counsel and decisional competence). Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted with the MacCAT-CA's original normative sample (N = 729) to test both the relative fit of these 2 theoretical factor structures and models that combine the 2 factor structures. Analyses were also completed to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the MacCAT-CA. Results are discussed in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the nomothetic nature of the MacCAT-CA.