17. 关于激进化和恐怖主义之间是否存在可预测的关系，正在出现一场新的学术和科学辩论。承认这场辩论正在进行，同时认识到各国政府和私营实体正在部署的可用工具和指示系统缺乏确定性，对于开展有关广泛使用防止和打击暴力极端主义的方案规划的审议至关重要。31 一些工具已经在区域一级得到部署，包括经修订的宗教原教旨主义量表、暴力极端主义风险评估工具二次修订版(VERA-2R)、极端主义风险准则(ERG22+)以及由相关专业团体在暴力激进化识别和应对项目下制定的检查清单，还包括欧洲各机构提供的各类工具，如欧洲边境和海岸警卫队编写的共同风险指标手册。32 使用这类工具引发了一些道德和功能方面的挑战。例如，VERA-2R 和 ERG22+等心理测量工具的共同特点是，它们将传统上聚焦精神疾病和越轨行为的结构化法证分析模型同其他带有强烈意识形态和政治内涵的情报分析模型相结合。33 在实际应用中，这些心理测量工具始终使用模糊因素，造成激进化评估与刑事和法律惯例脱节，使得精神因素成为预防性刑事司法领域的主流。34 此外，许多防止和打击暴力极端主义的风险评估工具在实践中被当作类型分析工具使用，使得用户(主要但不限于国家)在使用风险模型时容易陷入以下误区：(a) 使用的风险模型受到偏见、政治化或某方面无知的影响，尤其是在多文化环境下；(b) 使用的风险模型无法预测监测对象和社区；(c) 使用的风险模型在预防实践中引发大量行政专断行为；(d) 使用的风险模型在大多数应用情况下完全不受司法监督。35 特别报告员对上述所有风险感到关切，她着重指出，当风险模型被应用到政策领域时，上述风险似乎被系统性地忽略或低估了。
17. There is an emerging scholarly and scientific debate concerning whether there is a predictive relationship between radicalization and terrorism. Acknowledging that that debate is ongoing – and recognizing the lack of certainty in the available tools and indication systems being deployed by Governments and private entities – is essential for framing deliberations concerning the widespread use of programming aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism. 31 A number of tools deployed at the regional level, including the Revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale, the Violent Extremist Risk Assessment 2 (VERA-2R), the Extremism Risk Guidelines (ERG22+) and the checklists developed under a project on the recognition of and responses to violent radicalization by professional groups concerned, as well as various tools made available by European agencies, such as the common risk indicators booklet prepared by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex.32 The use of such tools poses a number of ethical and functional challenges. For example, the common peculiarity of psychometric systems, such as VERA-2R and ERG22+, is that they mix structured forensic analysis models, traditionally focused on mental illness and deviance, with other models of intelligence analysis containing strong ideological and political connotations. 33 Those psychometric tools consistently use ambiguous factors in their application, detaching radicalization assessment from criminal and legal practices and mainstreaming psychiatric factors into the preventative criminal justice arena.34 Moreover, many of the risk assessment tools used in practice for preventing and countering violent extremism function as profiling tools, which expose their users, primarily but not exclusively States, to the pitfalls of using risk models that: (a) are tainted by prejudice, politicization or specific ignorance, particularly in multicultural contexts; (b) generate unpredictability in the monitored subjects and communities; (c) open up wide administrative arbitrariness in the practice of prevention; and (d) entirely lack judicial supervision in most applied contexts.35 All of those risks are of concern to the Special Rapporteur, and she stresses that they appear to be systematically ignored or discounted in their use in policy arenas.