{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011342155009451797, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.4573170731707314, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Cogency of Risk Assessments

Preventive detention schemes rely on assessments of risk carried out by forensic practitioners. Corrective services departments and other organs of the state inevitably present the approaches they adopt and the tools they employ in this endeavour as being “best practice” and “evidence based”. Typically these assessments are conducted according to a bureaucratic template and are based on a selected suite of tests that are heavily biased towards actuarial assessment. The validity of this approach is gravely suspect as is the failure of many forensic professionals to properly identify the diagnostic accuracy/inaccuracy of the tests and methods they rely upon in conducting risk assessments. This article iterates the methodological and evidentiary problems with risk assessment of sexual offenders. It is concluded that common extant approaches lack scientific objectivity and fail to provide the courts with cogent evidence. As a result of these errors in investigatory processes miscarriages of justice are inevitable.