Download Full Version ebookmass - Visit ebookmass.

com

The Wiley handbook of what works in violence risk

management: theory, research, and practice Craig

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-wiley-handbook-of-what-
works-in-violence-risk-management-theory-research-and-
practice-craig/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Discover More Ebook - Explore Now at ebookmass.com

 Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

The Wiley Handbook of Healthcare Treatment Engagement:

Theory, Research, and Clinical Practice Andrew Hadler
(Editor)
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-wiley-handbook-of-healthcare-
treatment-engagement-theory-research-and-clinical-practice-andrew-
hadler-editor/
ebookmass.com

The Wiley handbook of what works with sexual offenders:

Contemporary perspectives in theory, assessment,
treatment, and prevention 1st Edition Franca Cortoni
(Editor)
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-wiley-handbook-of-what-works-with-
sexual-offenders-contemporary-perspectives-in-theory-assessment-
treatment-and-prevention-1st-edition-franca-cortoni-editor/
ebookmass.com

The Wiley Handbook on What Works with Girls and Women in

Conflict with the Law Shelley L. Brown

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-wiley-handbook-on-what-works-with-
girls-and-women-in-conflict-with-the-law-shelley-l-brown/

ebookmass.com

Inorganic Chemistry for JEE (Advanced): Part 1, 3rd

edition DPP K. S. Verma

https://ebookmass.com/product/inorganic-chemistry-for-jee-advanced-
part-1-3rd-edition-dpp-k-s-verma/

ebookmass.com
Macroeconomics: Principles and Policy, 14th Edition
William J. Baumol

https://ebookmass.com/product/macroeconomics-principles-and-
policy-14th-edition-william-j-baumol/

ebookmass.com

Win Every Argument: The Art of Debating, Persuading, and

Public Speaking Mehdi Hasan

https://ebookmass.com/product/win-every-argument-the-art-of-debating-
persuading-and-public-speaking-mehdi-hasan/

ebookmass.com

Towards Cleaner Entrepreneurship: Bridging Social

Consciousness and Sustainability Ananya Rajagopal

https://ebookmass.com/product/towards-cleaner-entrepreneurship-
bridging-social-consciousness-and-sustainability-ananya-rajagopal/

ebookmass.com

We End With Us (Harling Hill duet Book 2) Tara Lee Min

https://ebookmass.com/product/we-end-with-us-harling-hill-duet-
book-2-tara-lee-min/

ebookmass.com

Relationship Between Microbes and the Environment for

Sustainable Ecosystem Services, Volume 3: Microbial Tools
for Sustainable Ecosystem Services Jastin Samuel
https://ebookmass.com/product/relationship-between-microbes-and-the-
environment-for-sustainable-ecosystem-services-volume-3-microbial-
tools-for-sustainable-ecosystem-services-jastin-samuel/
ebookmass.com
The Self: A History Patricia Kitcher (Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-self-a-history-patricia-kitcher-
editor/

ebookmass.com
The Wiley Handbook of What Works
in Violence Risk Management
The Wiley Handbook of What Works
in Violence Risk Management
Theory, Research and Practice

Edited by
J. Stephen Wormith,
Leam A. Craig,
and
Todd E. Hogue
 This edition first published 2020
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as
permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at
http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of J. Stephen Wormith, Leam A. Craig, and Todd E. Hogue to be identified as the authors of the editorial
material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Office
111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at
www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears
in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or
warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all
warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.
No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements
for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or
potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or
services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with
the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies
contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate.
Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when
this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or
any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Names: Wormith, J. S., editor. | Craig, Leam, editor. | Hogue, Todd E.,
editor.
Title: The Wiley Handbook of what works in violence risk management : theory,
research and practice / J. Stephen Wormith, Leam A. Craig, and Todd E.
Hogue.
Description: First edition. | Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, 2020. |
Series: What works with offender rehabilitation series | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019045102 (print) | LCCN 2019045103 (ebook) | ISBN
9781119315711 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119315759 (paperback) | ISBN
9781119315889 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9781119315971 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Violence. | Violent crimes. | Violent offenders.
Classification: LCC HM1116 .H364 2020 (print) | LCC HM1116 (ebook) | DDC
303.6–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019045102
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019045103

Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Image: hidden forest by 1,006 (634 KB) Schwarzes-flimmern (talk | contribs) is licensed under CC
Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

Set in 10/12.5pt Galliard by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

0004507062.INDD 4 12/5/2019 11:39:25 AM

In memory of J. Stephen Wormith
 Contents

About the Editors xi

About the Contributors xiii
Foreword xxvii
Acknowledgements xxix

Part I Introduction 1
1 An Overview of Violent Behaviour from Aggression to Homicide:
Theory, Research, and Practice 3
J. Stephen Wormith, Leam A. Craig, and Todd E. Hogue
2 What Do We Know About Violent Offending Behaviour? 33
Daryl G. Kroner and Gunnar C. Butler
3 What Works with Violent Offenders: A Response to ‘Nothing Works’ 53
James McGuire

Part II What Works in Violence Risk Assessment 79

4 From Predicting Dangerousness to Assessing and Managing Risk
for Violence: A Journey Across Four Generations 81
James R.P. Ogloff and Michael R. Davis
5 Violence Risk Formation: The Move Towards Collaboratively Produced,
Strengths‐Based Safety Planning 99
Lawrence Jones
6 Predicting Violent Reoffending with the VRAG‐R: Overview, Controversies,
and Future Directions for Actuarial Risk Scales 119
L. Maaike Helmus and Vernon L. Quinsey
7 Structured Professional Judgement in Violence Risk Assessment 145
Catherine Garrington and Douglas P. Boer
8 Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment and Management: An RNR Approach
to Threat Assessment 163
N. Zoe Hilton and Liam Ennis
viii Contents

9 Sexual Violence Risk Assessment 183

Martin Rettenberger and Leam A. Craig
10 Personality‐Based Violence Risk Assessment 203
Mark E. Olver
11 Assessing Risk for Violent, General, and Sexual Offending in
Adolescents: Recent Advances and Future Directions 223
Jodi L. Viljoen , Melissa R. Jonnson, and Stephane M. Shepherd

Part III What Works in Specialty Clinical Assessments 251

12 The Importance of Understanding Anger in the Clinical Assessment
of Violence 253
Andrew Day and Ephrem Fernandez
13 Gang Violence Prevention Efforts: A Public Health Approach 265
Dawn McDaniel and Caitlin Sayegh
14 Terrorism and Ideological Violence 279
Wagdy Loza
15 Assessing the Risk and Treatment Needs of People Who Perpetrate
Intimate Partner Violence 297
Louise Dixon and Nicola Graham‐Kevan
16 Aggression from a Psychobiological Perspective: Implications for
Enhanced Violent Risk Assessment and Interventions 315
David Nussbaum
17 Assessment of Risk of Violent Offending for Adults with Intellectual
Disability and/or Autism Spectrum Disorder 349
Martyn Matthews and Elliot Bell

Part IV What Works in Violence Intervention 367

18 Risk‐Reducing Treatment in High‐Risk Psychopathic and Violent Offenders 369
Devon L.L. Polaschek and Stephen C.P. Wong
19 Anger Treatment with Violent Offenders 385
Raymond W. Novaco
20 Managing Violent Offenders with a Personality Disorder 399
Caroline Logan
21 Antisocial and Aggressive Behaviour Amongst Persons with
Schizophrenia: Evidence and Propositions for Prevention 419
Sheilagh Hodgins
 Contents ix

22 Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrator Programmes: Ideology or

Evidence‐Based Practice? 437
Nicola Graham‐Kevan and Elizabeth A. Bates
23 Interventions for Violent Offenders with Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities 451
John L. Taylor

Part V What Works in Violence Risk Management 465

24 Sexual Violence Risk Management 467
Gina Ambroziak and David Thornton
25 Effective Systems and Processes for Managing Violent Offenders in
the United Kingdom and the European Union 485
Hazel Kemshall and Sarah Hilder
26 Beyond Core Correctional Practice: Facilitating Prosocial Change
through the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision 505
Guy Bourgon, Nick Chadwick, and Tanya Rugge
27 What Works in Risk Assessment in Stalking Cases 527
David V. James and Lorraine P. Sheridan
28 Managing Violent Offenders in the Community: Reentry and Beyond 543
Ralph C. Serin , Christopher T. Lowenkamp , and Caleb D. Lloyd

Index559
 About the Editors

The late J. Stephen Wormith, Ph.D, was a Professor in the Psychology Department at the
University of Saskatchewan (U of S) where he taught in the Department’s Clinical Psychology
program and its Applied Social Psychology program. He was also the Director of the Centre of
Forensic Behavioural Science and Justice Studies, which was also at U of S. Previously he worked
as a psychologist in the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and was Psychologist‐in‐Chief for
the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. He was a Fellow of the
Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) and represented CPA at the National Associations
Active in Criminal Justice (NACJ). He co‐authored the Level of Service/Case Management
Inventory (2004) with D. A. Andrews and J. Bonta, and participated internationally in research
and training on risk assessment. He was on the editorial board of Criminal Justice and Behavior,
Psychological Services and the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice. He was
also on the Board of Directors of the International Association for Correctional and Forensic
Psychology (IACFP). In 2015, he received the Edwin I. Megargee Distinguished Contribution
Award from the IACFP. In the following year, he received a Teaching Leadership Award from
the American Psychological Association’s Division 18, Criminal Justice Section.
Dr. Wormith’s research activities have concentrated on the assessment and treatment of
offenders and community‐based crime prevention initiatives. He consulted with provincial and
federal government correctional ministries and for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(RCMP). He served as an expert witness on matters of offender assessment and treatment. He
also coached Pee‐wee hockey.

Leam A. Craig, Ph.D, MAE, FBPsS, FAcSS, C.Sci, C.Psychol, EuroPsy., is a Consultant
Forensic and Clinical Psychologist and Partner at Forensic Psychology Practice Ltd. He is a
Chartered dual Registered Forensic and Clinical Psychologist. He is Hon. Professor of Forensic
Psychology at the Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Birmingham, and Visiting
Professor of Forensic Clinical Psychology at Birmingham City University. He is a Fellow of
the British Psychological Society and the Academy of Social Sciences and Full Member of the
Academy of Experts. In 2013 he was the recipient of the Senior Academic Award by
the Division of Forensic Psychology for distinguished contributions to academic knowledge in
forensic psychology. He has experience working in various forensic settings including prisons,
probation and secure forensic psychiatric services throughout England and Wales and Northern
Ireland. He is currently a Consultant to the National Probation Service working on the
xii About the Editors

Offenders with Personality Disorder Pathway. He acts as an expert witness to civil and criminal
courts in the assessment of sexual and violent offenders and in matters of child protection. He
has previously been instructed by the Catholic and Church of England Dioceses, South African
Police Service and the United States Air Force in matters of risk assessment of sexual offenders.
In 2015 he co‐ authored a Ministry of Justice research report into the use of expert witnesses
in family law. In 2016 he was appointed as Chair of the British Psychological Society Expert
Witness Advisory Group. He sits on the editorial boards of several international journals and
has over 100 publications including 12 books published/in press. He is a Series Editor for the
Wiley Handbook on What Works in Offender Rehabilitation book series for Wiley‐Blackwell.
His research interests include sexual and violent offenders, personality disorder, forensic risk
assessment and the use of psychologists as expert witnesses.

Todd E. Hogue, Ph.D, is a Registered Forensic and Clinical Psychologist and Professor of
Forensic Psychology at the University of Lincoln. He started his career in the British Prison
Service working primarily with sexual offenders including organising the national training for
staff implementing the original Sex Offender Treatment Programme in the UK. He practiced
in community mental health and secure residential settings for adolescents before moving to
Rampton high secure hospital where he was psychology lead for the development of a special­
ist Personality Disorder Service and subsequent development of the Peaks Unit as part of the
Dangerous and Severe Personality (DSPD) initiative. All his practice has focused on the devel­
opment of forensic clinical services for individuals who are hard to engage and have high risk
sexual and violent offending histories. His research interests include understanding the impact
of attitudes towards sexual offenders and the extent to which attitudes impact on risk percep­
tion, clinical practice and social policy. The development of new methods of measuring sexual
interest / deviant interest using implicit methodologies such as eye‐tracking and touch tech­
nologies and evaluating the effect of applied practice initiatives on offender care, reintegration
and reoffending. Since 2006 he has been Professor of Forensic Psychology at the University of
Lincoln where he developed undergraduate and postgraduate in forensic psychology pro­
grammes and has published over 50 peer reviewed articles. He now acts as Director of Research
for the College of Social Science.

Editors Note: The editors would like to acknowledge and express their appreciation for the
administrative assistance provided to this project by Brandon Sparks, a graduate student at the
University of Saskatchewan.
 About the Contributors

Gina Ambroziak, B.S., has worked for Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center (SRSTC),
Wisconsin’s sex offender civil commitment program, for approximately nine years. She is
­currently the Quality Improvement and Research Supervisor and held previous positions with
the program as a Research Analyst and Treatment Specialist. She has been involved in research
related to the Structured Risk Assessment – Forensic Version, sex offenders with major mental
illness, and outcomes of released sexually violent persons. She obtained her Bachelor of Science
in psychology and legal studies from the University of Wisconsin‐Madison.

Elizabeth A. Bates, Ph.D., is a Senior Lecturer in Applied Psychology at the University of

Cumbria. Her PhD involved exploring the impact of personality and psychopathology on
men’s and women’s intimate partner violence. Her key research interests lie in exploring effec­
tive interventions for perpetrators, women’s violence and male victims of intimate partner
violence.

Elliot Bell, BCA, MA, PGDipClinPsyc, Ph.D., FNZCCP, is a senior lecturer at the
University of Otago Wellington, New Zealand. Dr Bell has a clinical background working in
New Zealand forensic mental health services in inpatient, community, and prison settings,
with mentally disordered and intellectually disabled offenders. He has extensive experience
writing court reports and has provided expert witness testimony. Dr Bell maintains a private
practice currently. He completed his Masters thesis on psychopathology in people with
­intellectual disabilities, and his PhD on Theory of Mind in people with schizophrenia. His
current research focuses cognitive behaviour therapies, mental health rehabilitation, intellec­
tual disability, forensic rehabilitation, resilience, and psychological factors in the rehabilitation
of physical health conditions. He is a Fellow and past Vice President of the New Zealand
College of Clinical Psychologists.

Douglas P. Boer, Ph.D., is currently Professor of Clinical Psychology in Psychology at the

University of Canberra (Australia). Prior to his current position, he worked as an academic
at the University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand for approximately seven years and
before that he worked for the Correctional Service of Canada for 14 years in a variety of
contexts including sex offender therapist and treatment programme supervisor. He is a
consultant to a number of agencies regarding sex offender treatment and the treatment of
xiv About the Contributors

intellectually ­disabled individuals who have offended in a violent manner. He has published
more than 70 articles and book chapters and edited books, as well as several structured risk
assessment m ­ anuals for use with sexual offenders. In 2017, Professor Boer was the senior
editor on a three volume handbook published by Wiley regarding the theories, assessment
and treatment of sexual offending. He is also on a number of editorial boards including the
Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, Sexual Offender Treatment, and the
British Journal of Forensic Practice. Finally, he is an active clinician, assessor, researcher,
and clinical supervisor.

Guy Bourgon, Ph.D., received his PhD from the University of Ottawa and is a clinical
­psychologist specializing in correctional and criminal justice psychology. With over 30 years
clinical experience in the assessment and treatment of adults and youths involved in the crimi­
nal justice system, Dr. Bourgon has been dedicated to the development and implementation
of empirically validated correctional services. He has published numerous articles on effective
correctional treatment services, community corrections and risk assessment. He has extensive
international experience in the training and supervision of front‐line professionals helping
transfer “What Works” to everyday practice. As co‐lead for the Strategic Training Initiative in
Community Supervision (STICS), an empirically supported and internationally recognized
best practice model of community supervision, he is recognized for translating research
­evidence into useful and practical concepts, skills, and techniques that promote client engage­
ment and facilitate prosocial change.

Gunnar C. Butler, B.A., is currently enrolled as a master’s student at Southern Illinois

University Carbondale (SIUC). He received his bachelor’s degree from SIUC, and has primar­
ily focused on research that aims at reducing recidivism rates throughout interventions. He has
worked on projects pertaining to prison programming, as well as a grant that studied the
effects of intensive probation.

Nick Chadwick, M.A., is a senior research analyst at Public Safety Canada in Ottawa, Canada.
He has contributed to research on the use and implementation of evidence‐based practices in
community supervision, the utility of assessing dynamic risk and protective factors in the pre­
diction of recidivism, and effective correctional programming.

Leam A. Craig, Ph.D, FBPsS, FAcSS, is a Consultant Forensic and Clinical Psychologist
and Partner at Forensic Psychology Practice Ltd. He is Hon. Professor of Forensic
Psychology at the Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Birmingham, and Visiting
Professor of Forensic Clinical Psychology at Birmingham City University. He is a Fellow of
the British Psychological Society and of the Academy of Social Sciences and Full Member
of the Academy of Experts. He has experience working in various forensic settings includ­
ing prisons, probation and secure forensic psychiatric services throughout England and
Wales and Northern Ireland. He is currently a Consultant to the National Probation Service
working on the Offenders with Personality Disorder Pathway. He has over 100 publica­
tions including 12 books published/in press. He is the Series Editor for the Wiley Handbook
on What Works in Offender Rehabilitation book series for Wiley‐Blackwell. His research
interests include sexual and violent offenders, personality disorder, forensic risk assessment
and the use of expert witnesses in civil and criminal courts (see About the Editors section
for more detail).
 About the Contributors xv

Andrew Day, Ph.D., is Professor in the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Centre at James Cook University, Australia. Before joining academia he was employed as a
clinical psychologist in South Australia and the UK, having gained his Doctorate in Clinical
Psychology from the University of Birmingham and his Masters in Applied Crimino­
logical Psychology from the University of London. He is widely published in many areas of
forensic psychology, with a focus on the development of effective and evidence based
approaches to offender rehabilitation.

Michael R. Davis, B.Behav.Sci.(Hons), D.Psych. (Clinical and Forensic), is a forensic and

clinical psychologist in full time consulting practice. He is an Adjunct Research Fellow at the
Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science at Swinburne University of Technology, an Adjunct
Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychiatry at Monash University, and an Honorary
Fellow in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Melbourne. Dr Davis’ practice is
divided between forensic assessment (particularly the assessment of risk, sexual deviance, and
personality disorder) and providing behavioural investigative advice to law enforcement in
cases of sexual and violent crime. He has provided behavioural advice to several police agencies
across three continents and is the only mental health professional in Australia to be elected to
membership of the International Criminal Investigative Analysis Fellowship. He regularly pro­
vides training workshops on risk assessment for clinicians and has conducted hundreds of risk
assessments for the courts and in consultation for mental health services, government depart­
ments, and private lawyers. Dr Davis serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Investigative
Psychology and Offender Profiling.

Louise Dixon, Ph.D., C.Psychol., is a UK‐registered Forensic Psychologist and Reader in

Forensic Psychology at Victoria University of Wellington where she is the Director of the
postgraduate programme in Forensic Psychology. She specialises in the prevention of interper­
sonal aggression and violence. Primarily, her research has centred on the study of intimate
partner violence and abuse, and the overlap with child maltreatment in the family. Louise’s
research has been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, Higher Education
Funding Council for England, Police Knowledge fund and more recently Ministry of Social
Development, NZ. She is a series editor to the What Works in Offender Rehabilitation book
series for Wiley‐Blackwell.

Liam Ennis, Ph.D., is the founder of the Forensic Behavioural Science Group, and an
Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Alberta. A
registered psychologist with 20 years of experience in the field of violence risk assessment and
management, he previously served as the resident psychologist for Alberta Law Enforcement
Response Teams, assigned to the Integrated Threat and Risk Assessment Centre (ITRAC)
where he provided risk management training and consultation to federal and provincial law
enforcement and child protective services regarding intimate partner violence, stalking, and
other forms of targeted violence. He is an active researcher and collaborator on the grant‐
funded Optimizing Risk Assessment for Domestic Violence (ORA‐DV) research project.

Ephrem Fernandez, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas, San

Antonio. His research on anger is directed primarily at the phenomenology and typology
of anger, the psychometrics of anger assessment, and integrative therapy for maladaptive
anger. He recently edited a book on Treatments for Anger in Specific Populations and
xvi About the Contributors

co‐edited (with Andrew Day) a book on violence. With Sheri Johnson and Charles Carver,
he is co‐recipient of a Guggenheim Foundation grant to evaluate treatments for aggressive
anger. He provides workshops and consulting services on anger, aggression, and violence.

Catherine Garrington, B.Sc. (Hons.), is a registered psychologist and psychology supervisor

who has facilitated group and individual treatment for violent and sexual offenders in prison
and community corrections settings for over nine years. She is currently a PhD candidate at
the University of Canberra, Australia, supervised by Professor Doug Boer, researching the risk
assessment of online Child Sexual Exploitation Material (CSEM) offenders.

Nicola Graham‐Kevan, Ph.D., is a Professor of Criminal Justice Psychology; the University

of Central Lancashire’s lead for Violence and Aggression, and a visiting professor at
Mittuniversitetet, Sweden. Nicola’s research focuses on exploring psychological processes
associated with criminal behaviour and victimisation experiences. These processes include
those that increase risk (e.g., exposure to adverse childhood and adulthood experiences, dys­
regulated emotions) and those that are protective (e.g., post‐traumatic growth, compensatory
consequences of domestic abuse, interventions). Nicola’s interests have led to her collaborat­
ing with others across the world including Europe, Asia, America and Oceania. Nationally,
Nicola works with stakeholders including UK Offices of the Police and Crime Commissioner;
Constabularies, Her Majesty’s Prison Service, Community Rehabilitation Companies and
third sector charities. She presents her research and delivers training on domestic abuse both
nationally and internationally. Nicola has an interest in theoretical models of risk and recovery
and how these can be applied to interventions for offenders and victims. Her research has
informed programmes currently being delivered across a range of services across many stake­
holder organisations. Evaluations of these interventions suggest that they make an important
contribution to the quality of life of some of society’s most vulnerable people.

L. Maaike Helmus, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in Criminology at Simon Fraser University

in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Her research has focused on offender risk assess­
ment, particularly regarding risk scale development and validation, and risk assessment for
subgroups such as sex offenders, domestic violence offenders, and Indigenous offenders. She
is part of the development team for Static‐99R, Static‐2002R, BARR‐2002R, STABLE‐2007,
ACUTE‐2007, VRAG‐R, CPORT, and the Risk of Administrative Segregation Tool (RAST).
Dr. Helmus also has a particular interest in meta‐analysis and statistical approaches to predic­
tion. She is currently co‐editor of the journal Sexual Offender Treatment and on the editorial
board of Sexual Abuse. A former Banting postdoc scholar and winner of the Governor General’s
Gold Medal for her work in risk assessment, Dr. Helmus has been the recipient of numerous
grants and awards from organizations including the Association for the Treatment of Sexual
Abusers (ATSA) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Sarah Hilder, M.S.W., is a senior lecturer and researcher in Criminology at Nottingham

Trent University. Her research and teaching expertise has centered on working with victims,
domestic abuse, gang violence and the sexual exploitation of women and girls, knife crime, sex
offender rehabilitation, the supervision and surveillance of high risk sexual and violent offend­
ers. Prior to an academic career she worked for the National Probation Service, as both a main
grade and then Senior Probation Officer. Sarah has published academic work on risk assess­
ment and safety planning in situations of domestic abuse, multi‐agency working, desistance
 About the Contributors xvii

work, sexual exploitation and female gang members, sexual offending and cross border
­information exchanges on serious violent or sexual offenders travelling across the EU com­
munity. She is well versed in comparative victim and criminal justice work across the European
Union (EU) having worked as a senior researcher on two major EU funded projects from
2010‐2015.

N. Zoe Hilton, Ph.D., is Senior Research Scientist at the Waypoint Research Institute,
Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and a registered psychologist.
She earned degrees from the University of Southampton, University of Cambridge and
University of Toronto. She was the lead on the research team that developed the Ontario
Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA), led the development and evaluation of in‐class
and online professional training (“ODARA 101”), and continues to study risk assessment with
collaborators and students. Her other current research involves understanding how workplace
factors impact trauma experiences among forensic and general psychiatric staff, and research
with a new cohort of men admitted to a forensic assessment including their pathways to
­violence, risk and criminogenic needs, and physical health.

Sheilagh Hodgins, Ph.D., F.R.S.C., is currently professor at the Département de Psychiatrie,

Université de Montréal and the Institut Universitaire de Santé Mentale de Montréal, and a
visiting professor with the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet.
Professor Hodgins has been publishing studies of antisocial behaviour and criminality among
persons with schizophrenia since 1992. Initially, large birth cohorts followed into adulthood
were examined in order to compare crimes committed by persons with and without schizophre­
nia. Once it was robustly established that schizophrenia conferred an elevated risk, especially for
violent crimes, clinical studies were undertaken to examine physically aggressive behaviour
towards others that was also shown to be more common among those with, than without,
schizophrenia. Subsequent studies aimed at identifying effective treatments, the neural corre­
lates of early‐onset persistent antisocial behaviour among persons with schizophrenia, while
others adopted a developmental perspective in order to begin to identify the causal chain of
bio‐psycho‐social factors leading to aggressive behaviour among persons with schizophrenia.

Todd E. Hogue. Ph.D is a Registered Forensic and Clinical Psychologist and Professor of
Forensic Psychology at the University of Lincoln. He has worked as a Forensic Psychologist in
prison, community and secure mental health settings developing forensic clinical services for
individuals who are hard to engage and have high risk, sexual and violent offending histories.
His research interests focus mainly on the impact of attitudes on professional judgements and
social policy, the use of new technologies such as eye‐tracking to assess inappropriate sexual
interest and the evaluation of brief interventions to impact on prisoner engagement and
wellbeing.

David V. James, Ph.D., is a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist currently working with Theseus
LLP in the field of threat assessment and management. He was formerly a Senior Lecturer in
Forensic Psychiatry at University College London. He spent twenty years working with men­
tally disordered offenders in the U.K.’s National Health Service. He was co‐founder of the
Fixated Threat Assessment Centre and the National Stalking Clinic. He is co‐author of
the Stalking Risk Profile and of the Communications Threat Assessment Protocol. He is an author
of some 65 papers in peer‐reviewed journals, as well as a dozen book chapters.
xviii About the Contributors

Lawrence Jones started his career working in the community with former lifers, serious
offenders and high secure hospital patients, after they had been released. He went on to work
at HMP Wormwood Scrubs where he trained as a Forensic Psychologist working with Lifers
and going on to work in and eventually manage a wing based therapeutic community. He
developed and piloted a CBT model for running Therapeutic Communities. He moved from
HMP Wormwood Scrubs to Rampton High Secure Hospital where he trained as a Clinical
psychologist and worked with people with a personality disorder diagnosis. He then moved to
work in the Peaks Unit, also in Rampton Hospital, eventually working as Lead psychologist
there, managing the treatment programmes and developing and maintaining specialist services
for individuals who have personality disorder diagnoses who have typically not responded to
or been able to access services in other high secure settings. More recently he has taken on the
role of Head of Psychology at Rampton Hospital. He is a former chair of the Division of
Forensic Psychology and teaches on the Sheffield and Leicester Clinical Psychology doctorate
courses and the Nottingham University Forensic Psychology Doctorate. He is an honorary
(clinical) associate professor at Nottingham University. He has published in a range of areas
including therapeutic communities, working with people who have personality disorder diag­
noses who have offended sexually, case formulation with people with personality disorder
diagnoses, iatrogenic responses to intervention, motivation, offence paralleling behaviour
(OPB) and trauma informed care.

Melissa R. Jonnson, BA (Hon.), is a graduate student in the Clinical‐Forensic Psychology

program at Simon Fraser University. Her research involves the use of risk assessment tools in
criminal sentencing, the experiences of sexual and gender minority youths in the justice sys­
tem, and the role of objectification in intimate partner violence. She takes an interdisciplinary
approach to her research, integrating perspectives from Psychology, Criminology, Sociology,
and Gender Studies.

Hazel Kemshall is currently Professor of Community and Criminal Justice at De Montfort

University. She has research interests in risk assessment and management of offenders, effective
work in multi‐agency public protection, and implementing effective practice with high risk
offenders. She has completed research for the Economic and Social Research Council, the
Home Office, Ministry of Justice, the Scottish Government, the Risk Management Authority,
and the European Union. She has over 100 publications on risk, including Understanding
Risk in Criminal Justice (2003, Open University Press), and Understanding the Community
Management of High Risk Offenders (2008, Open University). Her most recent book
Working with Risk was published by Polity in 2013. She was appointed to the Parole Board
Review Committee in 2011 and is a Board Member of the Risk Management Authority
Scotland and has chaired the Risk Management Plan Approval Committee for Orders for
Lifelong Restriction. She recently completed research into European information exchange
systems on serious violent and sexual offenders who travel across EU borders.

Daryl G. Kroner, Ph.D., is a Professor at the Department of Criminology and Criminal

Justice at Southern Illinois University (SIU). He has more than 20 years of experience in the
field as a correctional psychologist. During this time, he worked at maximum, medium, and
minimum facilities delivering intervention services to incarcerated men. In collaboration with
Dr. Jeremy Mills, he has developed several instruments, including the Measures of Criminal
Attitudes and Associates (MCAA), Depression, Hopelessness and Suicide Scale (DHS),
 About the Contributors xix

Criminal Attribution Inventory (CRAI), Transition Inventory (TI), and the Measures of
Criminal and Antisocial Desistance (MCAD). In collaboration with Drs. Morgan and Mills, a
book entitled “Changing Lives and Changing Outcomes: A Treatment Program for Justice
Involved Persons with Mental Illness has been published by Rutledge. In 2008, Dr. Kroner
joined the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at SlU. Current research interests
include risk assessment, measurement of intervention outcomes, interventions among offend­
ers with mentally illness, and criminal desistance.

Caleb D. Lloyd, Ph.D., completed his doctorate at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada,
and is a Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science at Swinburne University
of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. He directs a program of research on offender change in
corrections and the community, with an aim to conduct theoretically informed research with
clear practical applications for the correctional system. He has successfully attained funding for
his work from federal agencies in Canada and the United States, and is currently serving as
Principal Investigator on projects funded by the U.S. Department of Justice (National Institute
of Justice) and Victoria Department of Justice and Regulation (Corrections Victoria,
Australia). He seeks to be involved in building an international understanding of the psychol­
ogy of offender change, and collaborates on projects within multiple countries (New Zealand,
US, Australia, and Canada).

Caroline Logan, D.Phil., is Lead Consultant Forensic Clinical Psychologist in the

Specialist Services Network in Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
and an Honorary Research Fellow in the School of Medicine at the University of Manchester,
England. Presently, she leads the Trust’s Personality and Autism Spectrum Disorders
Assessment and Liaison Team, and has developed and runs a number of services for people
with personality disorder in prison and probation services. She has worked as a researcher
and a clinician in forensic mental health and criminal justice services for 22 years, working
directly in both roles with clients who are at risk to themselves and others. She also under­
takes various consultancy roles with the national health and criminal justice organisations
that look after and manage this client group, examining risk assessment and management
practice, and proposing and evaluating change. Dr Logan has served on the editorial board
or been associate editor of several journals (International Journal of Forensic Mental Health,
Legal and Criminological Psychology, Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology). She is
the co‐author of several sets of national practice guidelines (e.g., Understanding Personality
Disorder for the British Psychological Society 2006; Best Practice in Managing Risk for the
Department of Health 2007 and 2009; Working with Personality Disordered Offenders for
the National Offender Management Service/Department of Health 2015). She is Past
President of the International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services (2006‐2008),
and a past board member of the Scottish Risk Management Authority (2004‐2008) and
remains attached to the latter organisation in a consultancy role. Dr Logan has also served
on a number of Home Office/Ministry of Justice committees on criminal justice issues. She
is Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Bergen International Conference on
Forensic Psychiatry series (www.bergenconference.no). Dr Logan has on‐going research
interests in the areas of personality disorder, including psychopathy, and risk and she has a
special interest in gender issues in offending behaviour. She has published two books and
multiple articles on all these subjects and is currently working on a book on forensic clinical
interviewing.
xx About the Contributors

Christopher T. Lowenkamp, Ph.D., received his PhD in Criminal Justice from the University of
Cincinnati and is currently a social science analyst for the Administrative Office (AO) of the US
Courts, Probation and Pretrial Services Office. Prior to his appointment at the AO, Dr.
Lowenkamp was a research professor and the director of the Center for Criminal Justice
Research at the University of Cincinnati. Dr. Lowenkamp’s research interests include pretrial
and post‐conviction risk assessment, effective supervision practices, treatment and interven­
tion quality, and program evaluation. Dr. Lowenkamp has been involved in the development
of six risk assessments and has published over 25 articles on the topic of risk assessment. He
has written numerous practice related curriculum and materials such as Effective Practices
In Correctional Settings‐II (EPICS‐II), Staff Training Aimed at Reduction Re‐arrest (STARR),
the Post‐Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA), the Pretrial Risk Assessment (PTRA) and the
Public Safety Assessment (PSA). Dr. Lowenkamp is internationally recognized as an expert in
the field of corrections and has been awarded the Simon Dinitz Award by the Ohio Justice
Alliance for Community Corrections, the MacNamara Award by the Academy of Criminal
Justice Science, and the Dan Richard Beto Award by the National Association of Probation
Executives. Dr. Lowenkamp has been named as one of the top 100 most influential criminolo­
gists based on publication records and a top ten scholar based on research grant acquisition.

Wagdy Loza, Ph.D., received his PhD in psychology from Carleton University. He is an
Adjunct Assistant Professor (Psychiatry, Queen’s University) and ex. Adjunct Professor
(Psychology, Carleton University). He is a licensed psychologist (Ontario) and is the founder
of the Extremism/terrorism section of the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA). In
2009, he retired from Correctional Service of Canada with almost 30 years of experience in
the Correctional/Forensic field. He was the Chief Psychologist of Kingston Penitentiary. He
is currently a member of the Ontario Review Board (a government department responsible for
releasing Forensic offenders). Dr. Loza’s research interests are in the areas of predicting violent
and non‐violent recidivism with Correctional and Forensic populations, and understanding
extremism and terrorism, primarily emanating from the Middle‐East. He has more than 45
publications in these areas and offered workshops and presentations in several countries around
the world. Dr. Loza has developed two measure to help with predicting violent and non‐vio­
lent recidivism and Middle‐Eastern extremism and terrorism.

Dawn McDaniel, Ph.D., is Research and Evaluation Consultant with the PEAR Institute:
Partnerships in Education and Resilience, a joint initiative of Harvard University and McLean
Hospital. Dawn received her PhD in Child Clinical Psychology from the University of Southern
California, and completed a fellowship in Applied Epidemiology at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). She has worked with large youth‐serving organization, such
as the Boys & Girls Clubs of America and Outward Bound USA, to refine their social and
emotional development strategies, including integrating new measurement tools to maintain
continuous quality improvement through national dissemination of evidence‐based practices
and programs. In her clinical practice and research, she has focused on youth impacted by
gangs and trauma exposure and is interested in how social and emotional programming relates
to youth resilience.

James McGuire, MA, MSc, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor of Forensic Clinical Psychology at
the University of Liverpool. After some years in self‐employment he worked in intellectual dis­
ability services and then in a high security hospital. He has provided psycho‐legal assessments
 About the Contributors xxi

and reports for criminal courts, parole hearings, and Mental Health Tribunals. He conducted
research in probation services, prisons, youth justice, and in addictions services on aspects
of psychosocial rehabilitation with offenders, and has designed and evaluated a number of
­intervention and staff training programmes. He was co‐organiser of the What Works series of
conferences in the UK in the 1990s. He has authored or edited 15 books and over 150 other
publications, has been an invited speaker in 21 countries and has acted as a consultant to
­criminal justice agencies in several parts of the world.

Martyn Matthews, RNLD, DipCCM(ID), Ph.D., is director of Kestrel Consulting, and

was previously National Clinical Practice Leader for IDEA Services, New Zealand. He also has
a long association with Otago University, Department of Psychological Medicine, where he
completed his PhD investigating psychiatric comorbidity with autism spectrum disorder.
Martyn has worked with people with intellectual disabilities or autism spectrum disorders for
30 years, split between his two passions: early intervention for children and families, and devel­
oping services for people who have complex behaviours or have come to disability services via
the criminal justice system. He has extensive experience in specialist forensic services for people
with ID, in secure hospital and in community settings, both in the UK and NZ. Martyn was a
member of the NZ Government’s Autism Spectrum Disorder Guideline Implementation
Group and is a current member of the NZ ASD Living Guideline Group. He is also a member
of IASSIDD special interest research groups: Autism, and Challenging Behaviour and Mental
Health.

Raymond W. Novaco, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Social Behavior, at the University
of California, Irvine. He has extensive expertise on the assessment and treatment of anger with
a variety of clinical populations, including those with a history of violence. He received the
Best Contribution Award in 1978 from the International Society for Research on Aggression
for his book, Anger Control: The Development and Evaluation of an Experimental Treatment,
the Distinguished Contributions to Psychology Award in 2000 from the California
Psychological Association, and, in 2009, the Academic Award from the Division of Forensic
Psychology of the British Psychological Society. His co‐edited book, "Using Social Science to
Reduce Violent Offending" (Oxford University Press) received the 2013 "Best Book" Award
from the American Psychology‐Law Society. He received a UC Irvine Excellence in
Undergraduate Education Award in 2015.

David Nussbaum, Ph. D., C. Psych., received his PhD in Biological Psychology at the
University of Waterloo in 1983 and a Post‐Doctoral Internship in Clinical and Neuropsychology
at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. After working as a staff psychologist and Senior
Psychologist at the Metro Toronto Forensic Service (METFORS) for 17 years. He taught in
the Psychology Department at York University for 20 years, where he now remains as an
adjunct professor. He also taught in the Psychology Department at the University of Toronto
(Scarborough) for seven years, where he remains a sessional lecturer. Since 2010, he has held
a Guest Professorship at the China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, PRC. He
has published approximately 38 peer reviewed journal articles and delivered over 110 peer‐
reviewed papers at professional and scientific meetings. He served multiple terms as Chair of
three sections of the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) (Criminal Justice,
Psychopharmacology, and the Study of Extremism and Terrorism. He was elected a Fellow of
both the CPA and APA (Division 55; Society for Pharmacotherapy). He has sat as a Psychology
xxii About the Contributors

Member of the Ontario Review Board since 1996. His ongoing research interests include
epistemology, behavioural neurobiology, risk assessment and extremism/terrorism. His areas
of practice include neuropsychology, forensic psychology and clinical psychology. He recently
established the Allan K. Hess Institute for Integrative and Forensic Psychology.

James R. P. Ogloff, B.A., M.A., J.D., Ph.D., is trained as a lawyer and psychologist. He
is Foundation Professor and Director of the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science at
Swinburne University of Technology. He is also Executive Director of Psychological Services
and Research Forensicare, Victoria’s statewide forensic mental health service. He was
appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to education and law as
a forensic psychologist, academic, researcher and practitioner. He assesses and assists with
the management of some of the most difficult offenders in Australia. He served as British
Columbia’s first Director of Mental Health Services for Corrections and has been president
or chair of professional organisations (i.e., Australian and New Zealand Association of
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law; College of Forensic Psychologists of the Australian
Psychological Society; Canadian Psychological Association; American Psychology‐Law
Society). He has published 17 books and more than 275 scholarly articles and book chap­
ters. He has served as editor and associate editor of leading scholarly journals in his field. He
is the recipient of the distinguished contributions awards in law and psychology/forensic
psychology from the Australian Psychological Society, the Canadian Psychological
Association, and the American Psychology‐Law Society.

Mark E. Olver, Ph.D., is a Professor and Registered Doctoral Psychologist at the University
of Saskatchewan, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, where he is involved in program
administration, graduate and undergraduate teaching, research, and clinical training. Prior to
his academic appointment, Mark worked as a clinical psychologist in various capacities, includ­
ing providing assessment, treatment, and consultation services to young offenders in the
Saskatoon Health Region and with adult federal offenders in the Correctional Service of
Canada. He has published over 110 journal articles and book chapters and his research inter­
ests include offender risk assessment and treatment, young offenders, psychopathy, and the
evaluation of therapeutic change. He is co‐developer of the Violence Risk Scale‐Sexual Offense
version (VRS‐SO) and Violence Risk Scale‐Youth Sexual Offense Version (VRS‐YSO), and he
provides training and consultation services internationally in the assessment and treatment of
sexual, violent, and psychopathic offenders.

Devon L.L. Polaschek, Ph.D., DipClinPsyc., is a clinical psychologist and professor of psy­
chology in the School of Psychology and the Joint Director of the Institute of Security and
Crime Science, University of Waikato, New Zealand. Her research interests include theory,
intervention, and intervention evaluation with serious violent and sexual offenders, family
violence, psychopathy, desistance, reintegration and parole. She is the author of more than
110 journal articles, book chapters and government reports, and a fellow of the Association
for Psychological Science. Her research has been supported by a decade of funding from the
Department of Corrections, in order to develop a better understanding of high‐risk violent
male prisoners: their characteristics, and what works to reduce their risk of future offending.
She has evaluated the effectiveness of correctional programmes for rehabilitating offenders
since 1987, and more recently has worked on family violence research projects with various
non‐governmental organisations and on several different government contracts.
 About the Contributors xxiii

Vernon L. Quinsey Ph.D., received his PhD in Biopsychology from the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst in 1970. He was the founding Director of Research at the maxi­
mum security Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre in Penetanguishene, Ontario.
In 1988, he moved to Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, where he is currently Professor
Emeritus of Psychology, Biology, and Psychiatry. He has published upwards of 200 articles,
including nine books on risk appraisal, sex offenders, violent offenders, clinical judgment,
behavioural interventions in forensic institutions, program evaluation, and evolutionary psy­
chology. More information can be found at: http://www.queensu.ca/psychology/people/
emeritus‐and‐retired‐faculty/vern‐quinsey.

Martin Rettenberger, M.A., Priv.‐Doz. Dipl.‐Psych. Dr. biol. hum. Habil., is a psychologist
and criminologist and serves currently as the director of the Centre for Criminology
(Kriminologische Zentralstelle – KrimZ) in Wiesbaden, Germany, and is affiliated as an associate
professor at the Department of Psychology at the Johannes Gutenberg‐University Mainz,
Germany. He previously worked at the Federal Evaluation Centre for Violent and Sexual Offenders
(FECVSO) in the Austrian Prison System in Vienna, Austria, and at the Institute of Sex Research
and Forensic Psychiatry at the University Medical Center Hamburg‐Eppendorf, Germany. Since
2016, he is the secretary general of the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual
Offenders (IATSO) and as editor of the IATSO e‐journal Sexual Offender Treatment.

Tanya Rugge, Ph.D., is a senior research adviser in the Corrections Research Unit at Public
Safety Canada in Ottawa, Canada. Over the years she has interviewed numerous offenders and
victims, conducted risk assessments, worked with female offenders in clinical settings, and
conducted research on recidivism, high‐risk offenders, young offenders and Indigenous
offenders, and evaluated several restorative justice programs. She has been involved in research­
ing, advancing, and implementing evidence‐based practices in community supervision and
corrections for over two decades.

Caitlin Sayegh, Ph. D., is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Pediatrics at University of

Southern California Keck School of Medicine and a Licensed Clinical Psychologist at Children’s
Hospital Los Angeles Divisions of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine and General
Pediatrics. Dr. Sayegh specializes in motivation, treatment engagement, medical adherence,
and therapy process research. She has worked extensively with gang‐involved and juvenile
justice‐involved clients in research and clinical contexts.

Ralph C. Serin, Ph.D., is a registered psychologist who received his PhD from Queen’s
University in 1988. He worked in federal corrections from 1975‐2003 in various capacities and
is now a Professor at Carleton University where he is Director of the Criminal Justice Decision
Making Laboratory. He has received research funding from Canadian and US federal agencies;
he has consulted with various government agencies in North America, the United Kingdom,
Australia and New Zealand; and he is a member of the Correctional Services Advisory and
Accreditation Panel in the United Kingdom. Current research interests relate to understanding
offender change and decision making at key points within the Criminal Justice System.

Stephane M. Shepherd, Ph.D., is a Visiting Professor at the Department of Mental Health,

Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University and Senior Lecturer at the
Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology. He conducts
xxiv About the Contributors

research on risk and protective factors for violence and offending and cross‐cultural issues in
forensic assessment. Dr. Shepherd’s research explores cross‐cultural issues at the intersection
of psychology and the criminal justice system. He has developed an international body of
research and writing on risk and protective factors for violence and cultural differences in
offending behaviours and mental ill health and the implications for assessment. Dr. Shepherd
has pursued these interests through a variety of novel approaches and international working
experiences with people in custody and multicultural communities. His contributions have
raised awareness for cross‐cultural issues in the forensic psychology and general psychology
disciplines and have compelled researchers and practitioners alike to ensure that their methods
are culturally fair, relevant and non‐discriminatory.

Lorraine P. Sheridan, Ph.D., is a Chartered Forensic Psychologist. She completed Europe’s

first PhD on stalking and has so far published four books and more than 70 papers on the
subject. Her research has taken an applied, interventionist angle and she frequently trains pro­
fessionals involved in investigating stalking crimes. In the UK, Lorraine was a police accredited
offender profiler and she compiles psychological reports related to offenders, highlighting the
risks posed by known or unknown suspects. She regularly gives case management advice to the
police, security personnel, public figures and others on stalking, harassment, violence, risk
assessment, threat assessment, malicious communications and similar topics. After a long stint
as a senior academic in universities in the UK, Lorraine is now a Senior Lecturer at Curtin
University in Perth, Australia. She is a founder member of the Association of European Threat
Assessment Professionals. Her risk checklist for stalking has been adopted by most English and
Welsh police forces and partner agencies.

John L. Taylor, Ph.D., is Professor of Clinical Psychology at Northumbria University,

Newcastle upon Tyne and Consultant Clinical Psychologist and Associate Director for
Psychological Services with Northumberland, Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust. Dr Taylor
is a chartered clinical and forensic psychologist. He is Chair of the British Psychological Society
(BPS) Mental Health Act Advisory Group, a Past President of the British Association for
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP), and a former Chair of the BPS Faculty
for Forensic Clinical Psychology. Dr Taylor was one of the first two psychologists to be
approved as an Approved Clinician in England following the MHA 2007. He has published
more than 140 research papers, articles, books and book chapters mainly concerning the men­
tal health and forensic needs of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Dr
Taylor received an award for Outstanding Contribution to Applied Practice from the BPS
Faculty for Forensic Clinical Psychology in 2017.

David Thornton, Ph.D., is a forensic psychologist in private practice, based in Madison

(Wisconsin). In this capacity, he also works regularly in Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, New York
and England. He holds a part time position as a professor in the department of clinical
­psychology at the University of Bergen in Norway where he teaches and carries out research. He
has previously worked as both the research director and the treatment director of Wisconsin’s
SVP program and before that led the unit responsible for treatment services designed to
reduce recidivism in the national headquarters of Her Majesty’s Prison Service for England
and Wales. As a practitioner, he specializes in the assessment and treatment of sexual
and ­violent offenders. As a researcher he has been involved in the development of statistical and
psychological frameworks for assessing factors that contribute to different kinds of recidivism.
 About the Contributors xxv

This has led to the creation of statistical instruments like Static‐99 and Risk Matrix 2000 as
well as psychological models of risk like SRA Need Assessment.

Jodi L. Viljoen, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Clinical and Forensic Psychology at

Simon Fraser University and the Associate Director of the Institute for the Reduction of Youth
Violence. Her research focuses on risk assessment, particularly strategies by which to bridge
risk assessment and treatment. Dr. Viljoen is the first author of the Short‐Term Assessment of
Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version and an intervention‐planning tool called the
Adolescent Risk Reduction and Resilient Outcomes Work‐Plan. Her consultation work focuses
on helping agencies to implement best practices for assessing and managing risk.

Stephen C.P. Wong, Ph.D., is a forensic psychologist and Fellow of the Canadian Psychological
Association. He is Adjunct Professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada and Swinburne
University of Technology, Melbourne and Honorary Professor at the University of Nottingham,
UK. His research and clinical interests include assessment and treatment of violent offending,
psychopathy, and treatment evaluation. He is the author of more than 100 journal articles,
book, book chapters and reports. Steve started his career as a psychologist at the Regional
Psychiatric Centre, a maximum‐security psychiatric hospital in the Correctional Service
Canada. He was later appointed Chief of Psychology and Research, and then Director of
Research. In 2008, he left Canada to spend a year as Visiting Professor at the Department of
Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Science at Kings College, London. His research interests
are best escribed as a blending of applied research and clinical practice with a focus on the
assessment and treatment of violent, sexual and psychopathic offenders. He is the lead author
of the Violence Risk Scale (VRS) and the VRS sexual offence version (VRS‐SO). These clinical
tools can be used to assess violence and/or sexual risk for the respective offender groups. Steve
and his colleagues also developed the Violence Reduction Programme (VRP) for the treat­
ment of offenders and forensic service users.

The late J. Stephen Wormith, Ph.D., was a Professor in the Psychology Department at the
University of Saskatchewan (U of S) and Director of the Centre of Forensic Behavioural
Science and Justice Studies, which is also at UofS Previously, he was Psychologist‐in‐Chief for
the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. He was a Fellow of the
Canadian Psychological Association (CPA). He co‐authored the Level of Service/Case
Management Inventory (2004) with D. A. Andrews and J. Bonta and participated internation­
ally in research and training on risk assessment. He was on the editorial board of Criminal
Justice and Behavior, Psychological Services and the Canadian Journal of Criminology and
Criminal Justice. He was also on the Board of Directors of the International Association for
Correctional and Forensic Psychology (IACFP). Dr. Wormith’s research activities have con­
centrated on the assessment and treatment of offenders. He consulted with provincial and
federal government departments and served as an expert witness on matters of offender assess­
ment and treatment. (See About the Editors section for more detail).
 Foreword

The very word “violence” evokes strong emotional reactions and alarm in many people.
Violent behaviour threatens the physical and psychological integrity of the person and our
society goes to great lengths to minimize the threat of violence and protect victims and
the community at‐large. Acts of criminal violence are met with sanctions that far outweigh
non‐violent crimes. Violent offenders are incarcerated for longer periods of time than
those who commit nonviolent crimes. Offenders who commit homicide may be executed
or remain in prison for the rest of their life. Individuals who commit a violent crime and
are on probation or parole will be subject to more conditions and longer periods of com­
munity supervision. This is particularly so for sex offenders. Many jurisdictions have con­
trols that permit the incarceration of individuals, not for what they have done, but for
what they may do in the future (e.g., preventative detention, dangerous offender
designation).
It is not a surprise that much has been written about violence from both popular and schol­
arly perspectives. Scholarly books tend to be compartmentalized into silos of theory, assess­
ment, and intervention. Granted a specialized book, for example on assessment will include
theory and/or intervention but, these topics are usually addressed in a cursory fashion.
Perhaps, this compartmentalization is necessary considering the voluminous literature on each
of these three areas. This, however, need not be the case; theory, assessment, and intervention
are all closely inter‐connected. This edited book by Stephen Wormith, Leam Craig, and Todd
Hogue offers a notable exception to the silo approach of addressing the topic of violence. In
the text, an impressive array of international experts have been brought together to provide
the most recent advances in our theoretical understanding, assessment, and management of
violent behaviour.
Part I of the book gives an introduction to the topic and lays out the basic challenges in the
field of violent behaviour. The reader is furnished with a comprehensive review of who are the
violent, their prevalence in society, and the most recent explanations for their behaviour. We
are also introduced to the importance of social context (e.g., gangs) and subgroups of violent
offenders (e.g., intimate partner violence) with more in‐depth coverage left for later in the
text. Of course, specifying who commits violence and under what circumstances, even with a
sound theoretical understanding is limited without some guidance on how we can minimize
the harm from violent behaviour. Thus, Part I ends with an overview of the effectiveness of
treatment for aggressive offenders, both youths and adults.
xxviii Foreword

Various assessment approaches and specialized risk assessment instruments are thoroughly
described in Parts II and III. For both the reader who is new to the area of violence and the
reader who has spent a significant proportion of his/her career studying violent behaviour, the
chapters in these sections of the text are an excellent resource on the assessment of violent
offenders. We are exposed to the various general approaches to violence risk assessment and
the more commonly used instruments for adults and young offenders with a special emphasis
on intimate partner violence and sex offenders (Part II). Part III is a unique and valuable fea­
ture of this book. It includes what the editors call “Specialty Clinical Assessments”. The chap­
ters here address assessment issues that one would typically find in textbooks devoted to the
specific area. Thus, if one wanted to know current thinking on the assessment, for example, of
terrorism then the reader would typically consult a text devoted to the whole topic of terror­
ism and its complexity. In Part III we have a number of “go‐to” chapters brought together in
one text and should appeal to a broad audience.
The chapters in Parts II and III are critical for what follows in the book, the treatment of
violent and aggressive behaviour. Effective interventions are impossible without the reliable
assessment of the risk and criminogenic needs of the offender. Too many treatment programs
fail because of the inappropriate matching of treatment services to the offender. Parts IV and
V deliver in providing the latest evidence on effective treatment and risk management. A num­
ber of well‐established treatment interventions for violent offenders are presented here. In
Part IV, the reader will be pleased with highly readable chapters that address common issues
associated with violent behaviour (e.g., alcohol misuse) and the less common (i.e., offenders
with intellectual disabilities). Clearly, violence is not limited to a small defined subset of offend­
ers and social contexts. Finally, if society wants to do more than simply isolate the violent from
our communities through incarceration then treatment interventions must have the support
of criminal justice agencies. A number of examples of how much can be accomplished when
criminal justice policies and practice organizations are aligned with the “what works” agenda
are presented in Part V.
The editors of this text and the chapter authors must be commended for their scholarly
treatment of a difficult topic. They have achieved an empirically based and current account of
the theory, assessment, and treatment of violent offenders. This volume will be of considerable
use, not only to scholars, but also the practitioners and policy‐makers who deal with the issue
of violence. When our actions are based on a solid empirical foundation progress is made in
minimizing the pain and suffering arising from criminal violence. This is a goal that is shared
by the many professionals who have a responsibility to address violent behaviour and who have
an obligation to maximize public safety.

James Bonta
 Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the contributors of this volume for sharing their experience and expertise
and who have worked tirelessly on this project alongside their hectic schedules.
We would like to thank all those at Wiley‐Blackwell for their patience and guidance in bringing
this project together.
The Wiley Handbook of What Works
in Violence Risk Management
 Part I
Introduction
 1
An Overview of Violent Behaviour
from Aggression to Homicide
Theory, Research, and Practice
J. Stephen Wormith1, Leam A. Craig2,3,4, and
Todd E. Hogue5
University of Saskatchewan, Canada
1
2
Forensic Psychology Practic Ltd., Sutton Coldfield, UK
3
Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Birmingham, UK
4
School of Social Sciences, Birmingham City University, UK
5
School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, UK

Introduction and Overview

The magnitude and scope of human violence is vast and its manifestations take many forms.
As such, it remains one of the terrible ills with which our species must contend. Arguably, it
remains as complex and resistant to amelioration as fatal medical conditions such as cancer and
‘super bugs’, chronic economic issues such as poverty, hunger, and homelessness, and political
blights such as warfare, displaced refugees, and ethnic cleansing. Violence, by definition,
always has an impact on individuals and often extends to the broader community and society
as a whole. Consequently, society has a tremendous responsibility to address violence and to
challenge both its causes and its perpetrators. However, the diversity of forms by which vio-
lence is enacted dictate that our range of responses must be equally diverse. Social sciences and
their allied professions offer a number of important strategies to address violence by furthering
theories of violence, generating empirical data about violence, and translating the resulting
knowledge into policy and practice. But when it comes to violence, the devil is, quite literally,
in the details.
This chapter offers an overview of violence in society and the complex issues that it raises for
researchers, clinicians, policy makers, lawmakers, and society at large. It begins with a review
of definitions of violence, then describes its behavioural variability, and relates violence to
other forms of antisocial behaviour, such as aggression. While being mindful not to burden the
reader with endless statistics, it offers sobering data about the magnitude of violence in society
and its impact on victims, with a focus on its most severe expression, homicide. Attention is
given to some of the more popular and validated theories of violence as they may guide efforts

The Wiley Handbook of What Works in Violence Risk Management: Theory, Research and Practice,
First Edition. Edited by J. Stephen Wormith, Leam A. Craig, and Todd E. Hogue.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
4 Wormith, Craig, and Hogue

to reduce the prevalence of violence in society and to direct further research. In order to be
successful, such efforts must use empirically validated assessments, the dramatic proliferation
of which is described briefly. This leads to a review of explicit efforts to reduce violence pre-
sented in three tiers whereby the criminological concepts of primary, secondary, and tertiary
prevention are used to classify violence prevention initiatives (Pease 2002). The chapter ends
with a call to arms on many fronts and points to the remaining chapters as a series of promising
jumping off points.

Definitions of Violence and Aggression

Because of its diverse forms, a comprehensive, all‐inclusive definition of violence is more

­difficult to craft than one might anticipate. Moreover, disciplines and professions are likely
to conceptualize violence in a fashion that reflects their own perspective of human behav-
iour. It is also important to understand the difference between violence and aggression and
to appreciate how the former is situated within the latter, which itself, also requires some
thought to define.
There are two key aspects to the concept of aggression. The first is that it entails a conscious
effort to harm someone or some people. The second is that the nature of the intended harm
can take various forms including physical, emotional, and psychological. Although implied in
Glover’s (1960) psychoanalytic perspective on crime, Feshbach (1964) was the first to identify
two types of aggression that are based on the motivation of the perpetrator and are expressed
in two distinct manners. Although various terms have been used over the last half century,
the first form of aggression (described as hostile, irritable, reactive, expressive, and conflict‐
oriented aggression) entails a reaction to some kind of external event, often a slight, insult, or
perceived transgression or act of unfairness that generates an emotional, often impulsive and
disorganized, reaction to the triggering event. On the other hand, the second form of aggres-
sion (described as instrumental, predatory, proactive, purposive, premeditated, and crime‐
oriented aggression), is motivated by a desire to achieve some specific goal, often the acquisition
of material gain, but can also be motivated simply by a desire to inflict some suffering on
another individual. It is planned, premeditated, organized, and can take quite some time to
orchestrate. In addition, the magnitude of each motivational dimension can vary tremen-
dously, from a verbal insult to a murderous rage and from hurt feelings to the fraudulent
acquisition of one’s life savings.
In spite of the variation of severity within these two kinds of aggression, empirical examples
of their differences abound. Khachatryan et al. (2018) revealed that crime‐oriented juvenile
homicide was much more likely to involve accomplices (86%) than conflict‐oriented crime
(37.5%), while conflict‐oriented homicide was much more likely to involve firearms (75% vs.
39.5%). Also amongst juvenile offenders, Tecce (2014) found that those who committed instru-
mental aggression had significantly higher psychopathy scores than those who committed
reactive aggression. In the laboratory, alcohol is more likely to increase reactive aggression in
persons with higher hostile rumination scores, but not with persons with lower hostile rumina-
tion scores (Borders and Giancola 2011). Amongst intimate partner violence (IPV) offenders,
instrumental aggressors were significantly more likely to have previously assaulted a family
member (33% vs. 15%) and to hold attitudes that condone spousal assault (20% vs. 7%), while
reactive aggressors were significantly more likely to have witnessed or been a victim of family
violence during their childhood (29% vs. 11%; Ennis et al. 2017). Treatment, such as anger
 An Overview of Violent Behaviour from Aggression to Homicide 5

management, has been found to affect violent offenders’ potential for reactive aggression, but
not proactive aggression (Walters 2009). In a sample of violent offenders in Ontario, Canada,
there was a highly negative correlation (r = −0.57) between their degree of instrumental and
reactive aggression, lending support to the distinction between these two forms of violence
(Tapscott et al. 2012). These and many other studies tend to validate this classification system
in spite of its simplicity and as Day and Fernandez (2020) note in Chapter 12, the understand-
ing of anger is paramount in the assessment and understanding of violence.
A variation of Feshbach’s classification comes from the developmental perspective of Loeber
and Stouthamer‐Loeber (1998). They noted that overt aggression, which is characterized by
anger and confrontation, is often seen in children and adolescents, while covert aggression,
which involves greater cognitive sophistication and less emotional reactivity, is more commonly
used by adults. Clearly, overt and covert aggression bear resemblance to reactive and proactive
aggression. The fact that they emerge at different stages of development lends support for this
binary model of aggression and the different motivations and mechanisms that accompany them.
Although this was a helpful distinction in early theoretical work and research on aggression,
such a dichotomy is now perceived as simplistic. Aggressive behaviour often has elements of
both kinds of motivation (Bushman and Anderson 2001). Moreover, as Buss (1971) pointed
out, aggression may be expressed physically or verbally, by taking actions or lack of action (pas-
sive aggression), and by acting directly or indirectly (in the absence of the intended victim),
resulting in a 2 × 2× 2 classification system of aggression. The hostile‐instrumental characteri-
zation also excludes the concept of defensive aggression, which is a response that occurs when
a person perceives an imminent threat, typically physical, and often imaginary, as is the case
with some serious mental disorders.
Although all interpersonal violence may be described as acts of aggression, not all aggression
is physically aggressive (for example, relational aggression, verbal aggression, and passive
aggression). In other words, aggression may be perpetrated or attempted with the explicit
intent of harming a person or persons psychologically, emotionally, or even by reputation, as
we see in Internet‐based aggression. Yet ‘aggression is the basic ingredient of violent crime …
as well as violent behavior that may not necessarily be defined as crime (e.g. legitimate used of
force)’ (Bartol and Bartol 2016, p. 47). Simply put, violence refers to the more ‘serious and
extreme’ expressions of aggression (Tolan and Guerra 1994, p. 1). Invariably, it is an expres-
sion of physical aggression with intent to harm the victim physically. Most forms of violence
are antisocial transgressions in that they violate accepted morals, principles, and norms, and are
violations of the law in the jurisdiction in which the action occurred. Although there are some
differences in unaccepted and criminally defined behaviour across cultures and countries,
which is of interest in and of itself, there is notable world‐wide agreement as to what consti-
tutes violent behaviour. The destruction of property is commonly included in definitions of
both aggression and violence. However, it represents only a small portion, if any, of the kinds
of aggression and violence that are examined in this edition.

The Magnitude and Scope of Violence in Modern Society

as Illustrated by Homicide

As suggested, violent behaviour can take many different forms and can be expressed in widely
different degrees. Examples include various kinds of domestic abuse (child, sibling, spousal,
intimate partner, and elder abuse), sexual violence, reactive or impulsive violence, gratuitous
6 Wormith, Craig, and Hogue

violence, violence in the commission of another offence (e.g. armed robbery), ethnic and racial
violence, retributive violence, and violence in warfare. It is also important to acknowledge that
the prevalence of violence can vary over time and this variation may differ by type of violence,
which Kroner and Butler (2020) discuss in Chapter 2. However, the accuracy of these rates and
their changes are often treated with suspicion, in part because detected variations may be due
to changes in the patterns of victim reporting. Regardless, researchers, government, and crimi-
nal justice agencies have an obligation to report such changes as they are detected.
Murder and other forms of homicide are of particular interest in the study of violence for at least
three reasons. First, although homicide is not a common expression of violence, it does make a
consistent contribution to violent crime figures. In 2013 and 2016, homicide made up 1.2% and
1.4% of all violent crimes in the USA, respectively, claiming the lives of over 15 000 people in the
latter year (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2014, 2017). Therefore, its reduction is, or at least
should be, a global objective. Other Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) categories of violent
offences in the USA include aggravated assault (62.2 and 64.2%), robbery (29.6 and 26.6%), and
rape (6.8 and 7.7%) during 2013 and 2016, respectively. These offence categories, along with homi-
cide, combined to generate a rate of 367.9 and 386.3 violent crimes per 100 000 persons in the USA
during 2013 and 2016, respectively (FBI 2014, 2017). Comparing the violent crime rates to other
countries is difficult, if not misleading, due to differences in the definitions for violent crime. For
instance, while the FBI’s classification encompasses the above four offences, the British Office for
National Statistics includes minor physical altercations such as pushing and shoving, harassment, and
abuse, even if it does not result in physical harm (Office for National Statistics 2018).
Second, homicide is most easily defined and well documented in crime statistics, partly
because of its severity and partly because of its relative ease of detection. Consequently, the
‘dark figure’ pertaining to homicide (its rate of going undetected or unreported) is relatively
low because the more serious crime is the more likely it is to be reported (Skogan 1977).
Therefore, this relatively accurate picture of homicide statistics is more apt to reflect real
changes in perpetration over time at least within a common jurisdiction in comparison to other
forms of violence, such as sexual assault and domestic or IPV, which may be influenced by
changes in victims’ inclination to report the crime as social mores and police practices change
(Fisher et al. 2003; Koss et al. 1987).
Third, the causes and motivations for homicide are as diverse as the causes and motivations
for all kinds of violent behaviour (Blackman et al. 2001). Frequently, homicide is not much
different than other violent crimes except for the outcome, which, sadly, is often a simple mat-
ter of chance. The following studies illustrate this claim. Loeber et al. (2005) found that 95%
of young men who had committed homicide had a history of previous violent offending.
DiCataldo and Everett (2008) found that ease of access to firearms was sufficient to distin-
guish juvenile homicide offenders from other juvenile violent offenders, a sentiment later
echoed by Farrington et al. (2012). In fact, it is difficult to extrapolate risk factors that can
differentiate violent juvenile offenders from homicide‐specific offenders (Corrado and Cohen
2014). Risk factors for juvenile homicide include familiar risk factors for juvenile violence, such
as prior arrest, child abuse victimization, violent families, parental alcohol use, running away
from home, low school achievement, truancy, and frequent school suspensions (Heide 2003).
These findings support our contention that the difference between homicide and other violent
offending is in large part related to circumstances beyond the characteristics of the perpetrator,
such as the availability of firearms and access to advanced medical care, particularly when it
comes to the hostile or reactive modes of violence. As such, homicide represents a relatively
easily researched proxy, albeit an extreme one, for violent behaviour.
 An Overview of Violent Behaviour from Aggression to Homicide 7

In addition to the legal categorizations of homicide, many of which have similar, but not
identical, labels across jurisdictions (e.g. first and second degree murder, voluntary (nonnegli-
gent) and involuntary (negligent) manslaughter/homicide, ‘justifiable’ homicide, infanticide,
mass murder, unintentional homicide, assassination (murder with premeditation), vehicular
homicide/manslaughter, injury resulting in death, feticide (death of fetus), regicide, gross
negligence manslaughter, and culpable homicide), there are a number of behavioural, situa-
tional, and motivation‐based classification systems of homicide that illustrate its diversity. One
such example is provided by the FBI in the USA (Douglas et al. 2006). Although it suggests
four main categories of homicide, these are broken down into numerous subgroups. For
example, ‘personal cause homicide’ which typically occurs as the result of an argument or gen-
eral altercation and therefore is usually reactive in nature, has 11 subtypes including domestic
violence, argument murder, revenge killing, and hostage murder. Criminal enterprise homi-
cide is perpetrated for some kind of material gain and therefore is usually instrumental in
nature, or at least begins as such. It includes eight subtypes, such as contract killing, gang‐
motivated murder, kidnap murder, product tampering, insurance‐motivated murder, and fel-
ony murder, which occurs during the perpetration of another crime such as robbery,
kidnapping, and breaking and entering.
Sexual homicide has four subgroups that are based on an analysis of the crime scene. They
included organized, disorganized, and mixed crime scene murders, as well as sadistic sexual
murder. Homicide is classified as group‐cause homicide when there are multiple perpetrators
who share a particular ideology and includes three subtypes, cult murder, extremist murder,
and group excitement murder (Bartol and Bartol 2014). As such, homicide represents the tip
of a very heterogeneous iceberg of violence. This all makes for some important research data,
some of which is described later. However, we are mindful that mind‐numbing tables of homi-
cide statistics run the risk of losing one’s audience and the real meaning of these numbers,
specifically, the fact that each and every data point in these tables constitutes a tragedy that is
beyond belief.
Homicide rates vary substantially across countries and to a lesser extent over time. Although
one must be mindful of differences in definition, completeness, and accuracy across jurisdic-
tions, the United Nations has reported known homicide rates (homicides per 100 000 people)
worldwide for a number of decades (United Nations 2016). In 2015, G8 countries reported
the following rates in ascending order: Japan (0.31, in 2014), Italy (0.78), Germany (0.85),
the United Kingdom (0.92, in 2014), France (1.58), and Canada (1.68), with the USA (4.88)
and Russia (11.31) appearing as moderate and extreme outliers, respectively, and reminiscent
of lesser developed countries, such as Cuba (4.72, in 2011), Kazakhstan (4.84), Kyrgyzstan
(5.12), and Uruguay (8.42). As dismal as these statistics appear, they are all, with the excep-
tion of Uruguay, less than they were in 2003. The average (unweighted) change in the homi-
cide rate was a reduction of 27.63% over this 12‐year period. This equates to an average
reduction of 1.45 homicides per 100 000 people in each of these 12 countries. Yet the raw
numbers, even in these countries, remain disconcerting. Meanwhile some Central and South
American countries, such as El Salvador, Honduras, and Venezuela, with their drug‐related
and political chaos, have gone in the opposite direction, almost doubling (93.44%) their
already high rates (108.64, 63.75, and 57.15 per 100 000, respectively for 2015). In sum,
from a world view, small gains have been overwhelmed by dramatic losses.
Demographic characteristics of homicide perpetrators, such as the age and gender, have
been monitored for many years in most countries and offer a glimpse as to who commits this
most serious crime. Although there is no single document that provides age and gender
8 Wormith, Craig, and Hogue

statistics on homicide perpetrators in a standardized manner across countries, a review of

international reports offers a reasonably consistent pattern. However, one must also be cog-
nizant of the different base rates of homicide by country when examining the breakdown of
perpetrators and victims of homicide by demographics such as age and gender
Homicide offenders are most likely to be young adult males. The FBI reported that males
constituted 88.8% of the known homicide perpetrators in the USA during 2016 (Federal
Bureau of Investigation 2017). In Canada, males represented 86.04–89.29% of all known
homicide offenders between 2012 and 2016 (Statistics Canada 2017). Similar gender trends
are found in other developed nations, such as Italy, France, Germany, Russia, and the United
Kingdom, where males made up 96, 90, 90, 87, and 76% of homicide perpetrators, respec-
tively (Eurostat 2017; Flatley 2018; Italian National Institute of Statistics 2018; Lysova et al.
2012). Globally, the United Nations’ (2014a) Office on Drugs and Crime estimated that 95%
of homicide perpetrators are male.
The ages of homicide offenders are relatively similar amongst most industrialized nations,
although the specific age range categories differ depending on the reporting agency. There are
also some notable differences by country and gender. For instance, in 2016, the most promi-
nent age category amongst male homicide perpetrators was in the 18 to 24 range in Canada
and 20 to 24 range for the USA (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2017; Statistics Canada
2017). Across other jurisdictions, prominent age ranges for male perpetrators were similar in
France (20–30), Germany (18–20), the UK (16– 24), while slightly older in Italy (25–34;
Birkel and Dern 2012; Flatley 2018; Italian National Institute of Statistics 2018; Ministère de
la Justice 2017). However, in both Russia and Japan, the average ages were roughly 35 years
old (Hiraiwa‐Hasegawa 2005; Lysova et al. 2012). Amongst female homicide perpetrators,
the most frequent ages in Canada (25–34), Italy (45–54), and the UK (25–34) were moder-
ately to considerably higher than their male counterparts (Flatley 2018; Italian National
Institute of Statistics 2018; Statistics Canada 2017).
Clearly, data over time and across most jurisdictions point to young adult males being
responsible for a disproportionate amount of homicide in these countries. Both the conver-
gent and divergent statistics are relevant for academics (theoreticians and researchers), criminal
justice personnel (law enforcement and correctional practitioners), clinicians (psychiatrists,
psychologists, and social workers), and policy makers (politicians and government administra-
tors) to appreciate and to accommodate them in their efforts to quell violence in society.
Although these data do not explain the demographic consistency over time and place, nor the
differences (for example, age‐by‐gender), they suggest possible explanatory candidates, that
are likely to depend on one’s theoretical, ideological, disciplinary, and cultural vantage point.
A couple of perspectives deserve mention.
A clear and strong candidate pertains to biological factors, in particular the hormonal differ-
ences such as testosterone, that exist simultaneously across age and gender in a pattern that is
consistent with the above noted homicide statistics. Although not always popular, a complete
understanding of homicide, and violence more generally, must accommodate this pattern (Quinsey
2002). Resistance to accepting this relationship appears to be based on a sense that it leads to a
dead end, that intervention cannot overcome our biological condition and, to take the argument
to an extreme, may absolve the perpetrator of responsibility or mens rea. We do not accept this
fatalistic argument. Rather, we believe that the age–gender pattern should direct the above noted
groups (academics, criminal justice personnel, clinicians, and policy makers) to consider, in par-
ticular, this high‐risk, demographically defined group in their theorizing, research, interventions,
and policies, as presented later in more detail in a discussion of violence in general.
 An Overview of Violent Behaviour from Aggression to Homicide 9

As the method of homicide may elucidate the motivation for killing and lead to strategies to
lessen the occurrence of homicides, the use of weapons in homicide has been of interest to
police, criminologists, forensic psychologists, and lawmakers for decades. Although the use
and choice of weapon vary quite dramatically by jurisdiction, they have been very consistent
within jurisdictions. For example, the use of firearms in the annual commission of homicide
between 2005 and 2011 varied in the USA from 58 to 61%, in Canada from 32 to 36%, and
in the UK from 6 to 10%. The rate in Germany over two years (2005 and 2006) was 24%,
while no data were offered from other G8 countries (United Nations 2016). However, the use
of sharp weapons (e.g. knives and swords) during the same time period occurred in the reverse
order by country. The UK (37–40%) was followed by Canada (31–37%) and then the USA
(11–12%). Italy reported a rate of 27% in 2009. This dramatic variance between countries and
their differential use of weapons compared to the minimal difference within countries over
time points to cultural variations in these three jurisdictions that are not revealed by these
statistics alone.
The situational and interpersonal context of homicide over time and across G8 nations also
offers some consistent patterns. Gang‐related homicide accounts for substantially different
amounts of homicide across international boundaries. It has also become a high‐profile type
of homicide capturing front‐page news and political attention when it occurs. This is particu-
larly the case in Canada, where gangs were implicated in 34.3–48.6% of annual homicides
between 2005 and 2011. Gangs were involved in 22.6–24.7% in Japan (2005–2008, only),
9.6–17.9% in Italy, 7.0–15.0% in France (2005–2008, only), and 4.4–5.8% in the USA (other
G8 countries were not reported; United Nations 2016). Although some of these differences
are likely to be caused by different operational or legal definitions of gangs and one must
remain mindful of the different base rates of homicide internationally, the differing rates of
gang‐related homicide in relation to total homicide is both consistent and substantial, again
suggesting cultural variations. Regardless of the rate, gang‐related homicides and other violent
offences create a serious public safety concern for many communities; as such, many gang
violence prevention efforts have been developed, which are discussed further in Chapter 13
(McDaniel and Sayegh 2020).
On the other hand, homicides that occur during the commission of a robbery, and therefore
are a criminal enterprise type of crime, are much more consistent across international bounda-
ries. Over a seven‐year period (2005–2011), they include Germany (6.2–10.0%), Canada
(3.6–7.9%), Japan (4.0–8.4%), Italy (3.7–6.6%) and the USA (5.0–6.1%). Moreover, there was
no consistent trend over time, either overall or by individual countries (United Nations 2016).
Sadly then, at least for the foreseeable future, we can anticipate that about 5% of homicides will
occur as collateral damage during the commission of another crime, particularly robbery.
Victimologists attempt to glean an understanding of crime, including homicide, by investi-
gating the demographics of victims. Amongst G8 countries, while males make up approxi-
mately three‐quarters of homicide victims in the USA (77.8%), Canada (69.8%), Italy (69.9%),
Russia (75.5%), and the UK (70.3%), the male–female divide is more evenly distributed in
France (62.1%) Germany (52.7%) and Japan (47.1%). In countries undergoing political, social,
or financial unrest, there are particularly large gender discrepancies with males representing
the vast majority of homicide victims, as seen in El Salvador (89.0%), Venezuela (91.9%),
Nicaragua (92.6%), Honduras (93.2%), Greece (93.4%), and Panama (94.6%; United Nations
2016). This is not to suggest that females are safer in these countries. Rather, males are tar-
geted particularly in less‐stable countries, which speaks to the diversity of motives for homi-
cide, and more generally for violence, across cultures.
10 Wormith, Craig, and Hogue

Table 1.1 Percent of homicides amongst male and female victims that are caused by intimate partner
violence (IPV) presented by country and year.

Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average over years

Male victims
Canada 12.1 17.4 14.9 16.9 16.2 16.6 14.4 15.5
Germany 19.7 22.2 25.5 23 24.5 24.6 23.0 23.2
Italy 16.0 15.0 15.7 17.0 16.5 18.9 21.1 17.2
United Kingdom N.D. 14.1 15.8 15.6 15.2 16.3 13.7 15.1
United States 8.2 8.4 8.2 8.9 9.3 9.4 9.7 8.9
Average 14.0 15.5 16.0 16.3 16.3 17.1 16.1 16.0
Female victims
Canada 66.3 65.0 57.0 61.4 63.6 62.9 60.0 67.3
Germany 39.5 39.8 41.3 43.8 47.8 45.0 50.1 43.9
Italy 64.1 70.8 69.1 74.1 75.1 73.2 73.3 71.4
United Kingdom N.D. 57.7 62.4 64.9 67.6 65.7 67.5 64.3
United States of America 47.6 44.3 46.6 49.2 48.5 51.5 51.8 48.5
Average over Countries 54.4 55.5 55.3 58.7 60.5 60.7 60.5 59.1

N.D. = No data. Table adapted from United Nations (2016). https://data.unodc.org/#state:0

The demographics of homicide also merit examination by type of homicide in order to

understand it more fully. This includes intimate partner homicide, which itself occurs at dra-
matically different rates by gender (United Nations 2016). To illustrate, a number of impor-
tant patterns are apparent from Table 1.1. Most dramatically and not surprisingly, when
females are victims of homicide, it is much more likely to be in the context of intimate personal
violence than it is for males and this difference is consistent both across time and country. For
example, an average of 48.5% is found in the USA over seven years and an average of 67.3% in
Canada over the same time frame, with an overall average of 59.1% over these five countries
(rates were not available for France, Japan, and Russia). The corresponding rates on male
homicide victims ranged from 8.9% in the USA to 23.2% in Germany with an average of 16.0%
over these five countries. These mean rates for male and female victims also reflect a substantial
difference between the percent of homicides that were related to IPV across these five coun-
tries. In other words, male victims of homicide in Germany were 2.6 times more likely related
to IPV in Germany than they were in the USA. Differences for female victims were less
extreme. For instance, female victims in Italy were only 1.6 times more likely to be victims of
IPV‐related homicide compared to victims in Germany. However, these figures are partly due
to the much larger base rate of IPV‐related homicide amongst female victims. A cursory
inspection of these rates over time is also instructive. Although there is no apparent pattern
amongst male victims of IPV‐related homicide, a disturbing trend is found amongst female
victims whereby the percentage of female victim homicides due to IPV shows a general increase
(on average, 6% over these seven years), particularly in Germany, the UK, and the USA.
 An Overview of Violent Behaviour from Aggression to Homicide 11

In sum, there are both consistencies and differences over time, country, and kind of h
­ omicide
when we examine factors such as motivation, type, method, perpetrator gender, and victim
gender. In many ways, by examining the most extreme form of violence, these statistics give us
a glimpse of violent crime more generally.

Theories of Aggression and Violence

Although numerous types of theories (e.g. Anderson and Bushman 2002; Heto 2015), let
alone specific theories, pertaining to violence, and more generally to aggression, have been
proposed over the last century (discussed at length in Chapter 2 by Kroner and Butler), we
suggest that they may be categorized into five general types: biological, intrapersonal, social,
situational, and integrative. Amongst the biological theories, we include those that are con-
structed from genetic, biochemical, hormonal, neurological research. Nussbaum (2020)
devotes an entire chapter to these later in this work (Chapter 16). Markers for violence that
come from these include intellectual disability, poor executive functioning, and Foetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorder (FASD) (Brown et al. 2012; Glenn et al. 2007; Scarpa and Raine 2007;
see Gontkovsky 2007 for a review). It is also important to appreciate that these contributors
include not only the genetic, ethological, and evolutionary perspectives of human behaviour,
commonly summarized as hereditary, but may also have environmental origins. Candidates
include environmentally acquired medical conditions such as poor nutrition, exposure to toxic
substances, alcohol and drug consumption, head injuries, and physical pain (Murphy et al.
1998; Nkomo et al. 2017; Gontkovsky 2007; Rosenbaum et al. 1994).
Consequently, we now understand that the age‐old nature–nurture debate created a false
dichotomy, one that simplified a complex reality and divided potentially complementary
­perspectives, thus inhibiting potentially meaningful advances. For example, thanks to the
development of epigenetic research, it is now understood that the activation of a behaviourally
related gene may be may be facilitated or inhibited by external factors, some of which, such as
maternal care of species as diverse as rats and children, come from the environment (Meaney
2010; Meaney and Szyf 2005). There is no reason to believe that this kind of interaction does
not apply to the perpetration of violent behaviour, particularly with the emergence and our
developing understanding of the so‐called violence or warrior genes (Tiihonen et al. 2015). In
this regard, evolutionary theories of violence amongst humans also fall in this category
(Duntley and Buss 2004; Lorenz 1966), particularly in that they address the disproportionate
amount of male violence in most societies (Daly and Wilson 1994). Yet we are cautious about
the over interpretation and over representation of these and other biologically based findings
in the popular media, which will only be divisive and establish camps, both popular and aca-
demic, that will inhibit our potential for meaningful and accurate understanding of these
phenomena. By dismissing this line of inquiry, we would be tying one of our multiple hands
behind our backs, hindering us in our search to understand and reduce violent behaviour.
By intrapersonal theories, we refer to two things. The first is the litany of hypothetical
­constructs that have been proposed over the last 150 years, which have been proposed to cap-
ture human cognition and personality. They include psychodynamic structures, cognitive dis-
abilities, and personality characteristics that have been invoked in our efforts to explain violent
behaviour. A few notables include the id, ego, and superego, moral disengagement, empathy,
self‐esteem, self‐efficacy, self‐control, expectancy, deindividuation, dehumanization, nega-
tive affect or discomfort, rumination, and the so‐called dark triad consisting of psychopathy,
12 Wormith, Craig, and Hogue

narcissism, and Machiavellianism (Bandura 2002; Baumeister et al. 1996; Baumeister and
Boden 1998; Denson 2012; Freud 1920; Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990; Haslam 2006;
Larson et al. 2015; Pailing et al. 2014; Zimbardo 1969).
The second is the list of internal, psychological, and cognitive processes that invoke or
inhibit the expression of violent behaviour. Examples include the psychodynamic balance
between id and super ego, the frustration‐aggression sequence and its sociological counter-
part, strain, as well as emotionality, displacement, excitation transfer, rationalization and neu-
tralization, hostile attribution, and cognitive processes such as memory scripts (Agnew 1992;
Berkowitz 1989, 2003; Baumeister et al. 1996; Dollard et al. 1939; Freud 1920; Huesmann
1998; Lindsay and Anderson 2000; Martinelli et al. 2018; Sykes and Matza 1957; Tsang
2002; Zillmann 1988). Although these personal characteristics and internal processes are often
perceived as innate limitations of the individual (as per the preceding paragraph) or learned (as
per the following paragraph), they may also be a product of one’s social condition, such as
poverty (Eron et al. 1997) or familial development, as described in attachment theory (Bowlby
1988; Meloy 2002).
Social theories of violence include social learning, modelling, and various forms of social
reinforcement (Bandura 1977; Cohn and Rotton 2006; Mischel and Shoda 1995). Although
they are more obviously related to instrumental violence, they also apply to violence that has
been triggered by hostility, as when violence has become a socially learned response or antici-
pated ‘solution’ to distressing emotions. Theories of social‐group influence as illustrated by
bullying, gang violence, mob destruction, riots, copycat and contagion violence, including
homicide, ideological violence, and terrorism (see Chapter 14, Loza 2020) for an overview
of the social and ideological contributors to terrorist activities), all fall into this category.
They include feminist theories in their analysis of IPV and sexual violence (Brownmiller 1975;
Henderson 2007) and theories about the intergenerational transmission of violence that
examine features of violence aside from genetic factors (Eriksson and Mazerolle 2015; Kwong
et al. 2003). Finally, reminiscent of the integrative theories described later, general systems
theory, first introduced to human services through social work more than forty years ago
(Goldstein 1973), goes beyond the interaction of individuals to examine the larger context of
families, communities, and society leading to system‐level solutions, particularly with refer-
ence to family violence (Straus 1973; Murray 2006). Social theories of violence may also
invoke some of the internal psychological constructs and processes, such as deindividuation,
cited earlier.
Situational theories turn our attention to the external world for elicitors of violent behav-
iour and may be better described as models for understanding violent behaviour. This can
range from a specific image or stimulus in the environment to an event or a situation that has
acted as a trigger for violence. A key feature of situational violence is that the behaviour is less
likely to have occurred in the absence of a particular trigger. As such, situational theories do
not typically address the original motivation for the behaviour but focus on exacerbating
features in the environment. Triggers may be inanimate or living, transitory or fixed. Examples
include the presence of a weapon, opportunity, temperature, lighting, even a symbolic repre-
sentation of aggression such as a picture of a weapon (weapons effect; Berkowitz and LePage
1967; Brennan and Moore 2009; Carlson et al. 1990; Cohn 1990; Farrington and Welsh
2002; Steadman 1982). Situational triggers are often dependent on many of the above noted
personality features to effect violent behaviour (e.g. Tsang 2002). Notably, a particular
­situation may have a terrible impact on some people’s behaviour and no influence on the
behaviour of others, suggesting an intrapersonal‐by‐situational interaction. Crime prevention
 An Overview of Violent Behaviour from Aggression to Homicide 13

by environmental design, typically in public places, is one means of attempting to ameliorate

such violence. One is reminded that situational theories are not meant to excuse the b ­ ehaviour
because the trigger is external to the perpetrator. Rather they are meant to obtain a better
overall understanding of the causes and contributors to violent behaviour. Moreover, they
may facilitate the delivery of interventions that use a relapse prevention model (Pithers 1990).
In spite of the internal variations of the preceding types of theories of violence and their
overlap and interaction with each other, Anderson and Bushman (2002) described them as
domain‐specific theories. By integrated or meta‐theories, we refer to efforts made by theoreti-
cians and researchers to combine multiple perspectives about the aetiology of aggression and
violence and to do so in a meaningful and integrated fashion. An early example comes from
Raine’s (1993) sociobiological evolutionary model of psychopathology, which encompassed
crime and violence and focused on a genetic‐by‐environment interaction. A more recent
example is the General Aggression Model (GAM; Anderson and Bushman 2002; DeWall
and Anderson 2011). The GAM accommodates many of the theories and processes described
earlier and integrates them through a cognitive processing and decision model. It posits that
individuals process a full range of factors, including past experiences, an assessment of the cur-
rent scenario, and possible outcomes before deciding to engage in violent behaviour. With
time, and more experiences from which one may draw, the process becomes more immediate
and part of a lifestyle pattern, particularly when there have been role models to emulate. GAM
also considers the process of escalation which often precedes overt violence when individuals
misinterpret the meaning of one another’s behaviour such that the confrontation culminates
in a violent altercation.
I3 offers another integrative perspective of aggression and violence (Slotter and Finkel
2011). It examines individual factors that promote aggression and how they interact to increase
or decrease aggression. The three ‘I’s include instigating triggers, impelling forces, and inhib-
iting forces. Instigating triggers draw on the situational theories as they refer to discrete inci-
dents that are likely to invoke violent behaviour. Impelling forces exacerbate the situation,
often drawing on the biological and intrapersonal characteristics of the adversaries. Inhibiting
forces are those factors that increase the likelihood of a nonviolent resolution to the risky
situation. This latter point is a welcome addition to theories of violence as it includes
­
characteristics such as self‐regulation in its model. As such, I3 invokes a hypothetical
­
­mathematical equation (i.e. risk = I1 + I2 − I3). It offers a potentially valuable perspective to
understand ­various kinds of hostile violence, such as most IPV (Maldonado et al. 2015).
What is important to note about these different types of theories of violence is that each has
its own set of approaches to prevention, its foci for assessment, and its remedies for reducing
the likelihood of further perpetration. This includes the biological (Raine 2013), the intraper-
sonal (Leichsenring and Leibing 2003), the psycho‐social (McGuire 2008, Chapter 3: McGuire
2020), the situational (Clarke 1995), and the integrative (Gilbert et al. 2017).

Assessment and Prediction of Violent Behaviour

Assessment and prediction is the first crucial prong in the campaign against violence at the
individual level and goes hand‐in‐hand with intervention. Without knowing who to target and
what kinds of issues to tackle (i.e. violence‐related criminogenic needs), scarce human service
resources are likely to be squandered on individuals who are not in need of service and on
issues that are unrelated to violent behaviour. This kind of rationale invokes the risk‐and‐need
14 Wormith, Craig, and Hogue

principle as developed by Andrews and Bonta for the treatment of antisociality more generally
(Andrews et al. 1990; Bonta and Andrews 2017). The now well established take‐home mes-
sage to criminal justice administrators and clinicians is to direct treatment services to high‐risk
offenders (risk principle), to offer services that address the criminogenic needs of clients (need
principle), and to do so using behavioural and cognitive behavioural techniques that respect
the demographic and psychological attributes of the client (responsivity principle; Andrews
et al. 1990; Hanson et al. 2009; Prendergast et al. 2013; Smith et al. 2009). Of course, this
lies in the belief that treatment works, in stark contrast to some previous beliefs. See McGuire
(2020, Chapter 3) for a lengthy rebuttal to the ‘nothing works’ movement.
If one is to adhere to these principles, accurate assessments of existing and likely (at risk)
offenders is required. Fortunately, this is an area where a great deal of reliable guidance can be
taken from a research base that has blossomed over the last forty years and arguably represents
one of social sciences’ greatest contribution to violence prevention (Andrews et al. 2006).
Chapter 4 (Ogloff and Davis 2020) takes us through the journey from unstructured clinical
judgements to empirically supported risk assessments and risk management in detail.
Garrington and Boer (2020) pick up from there in Chapter 7 and explore the accuracy of
several current structured professional judgement tools. Overall, there are at least four main
themes that may be derived from the voluminous risk‐assessment research.
First, we can predict offending behaviour, including violent acts. Simply said, the best risk‐
assessment instruments are about ‘half‐way there’, that is to say mid‐way between performing
no better than chance and being completely accurate (Ogloff and Davis 2020, Chapter 4).
Helmus and Quinsey (2020) provide an example of one of the leading violence risk‐assess-
ment instruments and discuss the future directions for actuarial risk scales in Chapter 6. The
prediction of violent behaviour is not restricted to adults; Viljoen et al. (2020) respond to
earlier concerns that it is difficult to assess risk of violence with young offenders in Chapter 11.
Given the overrepresentation of intellectual disabilities in correctional populations, it is impor-
tant to note that risk assessments are also accurate with this population, as Matthews and Bell
(2020) demonstrate in Chapter 17. Admittedly, the science and practice of offender violence
risk assessment is still quite away from complete accuracy but has far surpassed the realization
in the 1970s that violent behaviour simply cannot be predicted with traditional psychiatric
assessment procedures (Steadman and Cocozza 1978).
Second, we can identify risk factors that are changeable and when they change, risk changes
in the same direction. In particular, so‐called third and fourth generation risk‐assessment
instruments have what has been referred to as dynamic predictive validity (Andrews et al.
2006). In an early meta‐analysis of offender risk factors, Gendreau et al. (1996) demonstrated
that dynamic risk items predicted general recidivism at least as well as static risk items in spite
of their greater difficulty to score reliably. Their finding was then replicated with institutional
violence and violent recidivism (Campbell et al. 2009). Since then, clear examples of their
predictive and incremental (beyond static risk factors) validity have been demonstrated with
sexual offenders (Van den Berg et al. 2018), psychopathic offenders (Lewis et al. 2012), foren-
sic patients (Wilson et al. 2013), and young offenders (McGrath and Thompson 2012).
Despite the advances noted earlier, more research is required on their dynamic predictive
validity in which changes on risk either naturally or by virtue of intervention, are required.
Third, the prediction of specific kinds of antisocial behaviour, including different kinds of
violent behaviour, can best be predicted with specialty instruments that have been designed to
predict specific kinds of violence. For example, Hilton and Ennis (2020) discuss the role of
three risk assessment instruments in the prediction of IPV perpetration in Chapter 8. James
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
XIII

Sadetta seuraa päiväpaiste, se on tunnettu; mutta kansa sanoo

vielä, että jokaisen onnellisen hetken elämässä kostavat katkerasti
seuraavat.

Rassmann eli joka tapauksessa mielestään onnellisen hetken, kun

hän muutamia minuutteja myöhemmin meni vielä kerran kapakkaan
torin varrella, ottaakseen iltanaukun.

Hänen ajatuksensa olivat vielä Rosan luona, tämän kavalan

käärmeen. Mutta kun hän oli tyhjentänyt toisen lasin ja tilannut
kolmannen, oli hän jo unhottanut kapakkalaulajattaren ivalliset
jäähyväiset ja mitättömän puijauksen. Agitaattori voi paremmin kuin
konsanaan.

Nyt oli ainaiseksi poissa naikkonen, jonka juorukieltä hän pelkäsi

— se oli toki jotakin! Hän oli toivonsa mukaan voittanut kaupassa
sata taalaria. Kaikki meni hänen tahtonsa mukaan.

Nyt oli saatava Samuel Hirschin kanssa jokin sovinto aikaan,

silloin olivat vanhat jälet jälleen tasotetut. Hän saattoi omistaa
itsensä kokonaan toverinsa rouvalle.
 Mutta keksitty juttu valtiopäiväehdokkuudesta Dingskirchissä? No
— tottapahan löytyisi keino. Voisihan hätätilassa mainita jonkun
etevän puolueenjäsenen, jonka vaali oli sillä hetkellä huomattu
suotavammaksi.

Ensin täytyi odottaa vaalikomitean enempiä toimenpiteitä,

ennenkuin itse ryhtyi toimintaan. Siten kului pari sen päivää, ja mitä
kaikkea niiden kuluessa ehtiikään miettiä!

Rassmann, kuten muutkin hyvänpäivän ihmiset, ei ajatellut

seuraavaa päivää. Ja miksi olisikaan? Schornin kallionluja luottamus
ja hänen herkkäuskoisuutensa tuuditti hänet yhä suurempaan
varmuuteen. Nuori mestari ei seuraavana päivänä katsonut lainkaan
maksavan vaivaa kysyä, oliko hänen ystävänsä jo rahat lähettänyt.

Sehän oli niin varmaa kuin kaksi kertaa kaksi oli neljä. Olihan hän
kuullut, kun Rassmann edellisenä iltana sanoi: "Menen postiin,
Vilhelm, rahoja lähettämään."

"Hyvä, hyvä, Gustav", oli toveri vastannut. "Tee se". Silloin oli
agitaattori lisännyt, että hän kai viipyisi myöhempään, sillä hän aikoi
taas kerran käydä "klubin" jäseniä tervehtimässä, ilmottaakseen
heillekin iloisen uutisen.

Seuraavina päivinä näytti suuri toveri siltä kuin hänen päänsä olisi
täynnä yksistään vaalijuttuja. Schorn näki häntä vähän ja luuli hänen
istuvan huoneessaan kirjotellen ja tutkien puoluesuhteita.

Mutta Rassmannilla oli syynsä pysytteleidä ylhäällä. Rouva

Schorn istui etuhuoneessa käsitöineen. Rassmann oli siellä hänen
läheisyydessään ja saattoi ilmestyä, milloin hän vain äännähti.
 Ja silloin kuului aina: "Gustav" — "Hanna" — "rakas ystävä" —
"rakas ystävätär". — Puristettiin toistensa käsiä, naurettiin, laskettiin
leikkiä kuten aina, ja Rassmann koetti lähentelemisessään mennä
niin pitkälle kuin mahdollista.

Kun rouva Schorn yritti närkästyä, silloin tulivat esiin painavat

sanat vapaasta rakkaudesta ja innokkaana sosialistina kumartui
Hanna kommunismin lakien edessä ja ajatteli yksikseen: "Oh, sehän
on vain pelkkää ystävän leikkiä".

Ja hän sieti agitaattorin lähentelyä, kuunteli sävyisästi tämän

kaksimielisiä viekotteluja, ja mieletön huumaus, joka häntä piti
lumoissaan, hämmensi hänen mieltään yhä enemmän.

Kun he kuulivat Schornin raskaat askeleet portaissa, silloin

kummasteli nuori vaimo, että Rassmann lakkasi
tunkeilevaisuudestaan. Hänestä olisi ollut luonnollista, jos kotiystävä
olisi jatkanut samoin hänen miehensä läsnäollessakin.

Niin pitkälle oli jo jouduttu!

Mutta Rassmann ajatteli Schornin sanoja: "Asia näyttää läheltä

katsottuna toiselta kuin jos sitä kantaa vain ajatuksissaan." — —

Kun agitaattori sitte näki ystävänsä kulmikkaan muodon pistävän

esiin häiriten heidän rauhaansa, ikuinen hyväntahtoinen hymy
huulillaan, silloin heräsivät yhtäkkiä vanhat mustat ajatukset. Hän
toivoi edessään olevan miehen olevan siellä, jossa hän olisi
ainaiseksi erotettu tästä talosta, jotta hän, Rassmann, yksin voisi
iloita sen omistamisesta.
 "Omaisuus on varkautta." Tämä kommunistinen lause hänen
mielestään oikeutti hänet siten ajattelemaan.

Oli tuleva hetki, jona hänen toivomuksensa täyttyi. —

Kolmas päivä Rosan lähdön jälkeen oli tärkeä päivä, sillä silloin
lankesi Samuel Hirschille tunnustettu vekseli.

Aamulla ennen yhdeksää oli Rassmann jo kauppiaan puodissa,

toivoen sata taalaria maksettuaan saavansa antaa uuden vekselin
velan jäännöstä vastaan. Tällä kertaa naurahti herra Hirsch niin
äkkiä ja ääneen, että agitaattori hetkiseksi vaaleni.

Sitte työnsi rehellinen rahamies rahat hänelle takaisin ja sanoi:

"Älkää vaivautuko suotta. Koska olette minulle tuttu, annan teille

aikaa kello kahteen iltapäivällä. Jollette silloin ole vekseliä
lunastanut, täytyy minun, käydä herra Schornin luona. Tarvitsen
rahaa enkä tiedä kuinka liiketoverinne laita on. Hänhän tahtoi
äskettäin eräältä kilpailijaltaan lainata kuusisataa taalaria, se panee
ajattelemaan —"

Rassmann pyysi, rukoili kuten viime kerrallakin, mutta turhaan —

Samuel
Hirsch pysyi kivikovana.

Niin kuumeisen kiihottunut ei agitaattori ollut vielä kuunaan ollut

kuin rientäessään katuja pitkin. Hän vapisi jo ajatellessaankin
paljastusta Schornin edessä. Kun tämä mies vain sai tietää, että
häntä petettiin, silloin oli ystävyys ainaiseksi lopussa.

Mitä tehdä? Rahaa oli nuorella mestarilla aina kassassaan,

joskaan ei paljoa. Kenties se riitti. Oliko hänelle uudelleen
valehdeltava, sanottava, että oli juuri saapunut sähkösanoma, että
hänen oli lähdettävä jo kahden junalla Dingskirchiin
vaaliagitatsioonia järjestämään ja että hän vielä tarvitsi suuremman
summan?

Varmaan, se oli ainoa keino!

Rassmann ei ajatellut, että hän siten joutui pulmasta toiseen.

Hirschin tyydyttäminen, se yksin oli kannustin, joka häntä pakotti
nopeaan toimintaan.

Hän näytti perin hämmentyneeltä kotiin saapuessaan. Schorn ei

ollut työpajassaan. Hänen ammattinsa oli hänet vaatinut toiselle
puolelle katua pääkundinsa, huonekalukauppias Ehlertin luo
tekemään muutamia korjauksia varastohuoneessa. Rassmann ei
vitkastellut hetkeäkään, eihän hänellä ollutkaan aikaa hukata. Hänen
täytyi puhutella toveria heti paikalla. Hän meni sinne.

Ehlert ei ollut nainut ja hoiti liikettään yksin. Rassmann asioi usein

hänen luonaan ja tunsi tarkoin talon.

Agitaattori astui eteisestä konttooriin. Ketään ei ollut saapuvilla.

Tämän huoneen vieressä oli varastohuone. Lasiovi, joka sinne vei,
oli raollaan. Sen takana täytyi Schornin olla työssä. Rassmann
vilkasi ruudun lävitse; hän ei nähnyt niin ristisielua. Kun hän
umpimähkään tuli vilkaisseeksi sivuun päin, sattui hän näkemään,
että avain oli pulpetin laatikon suulla.

Hän tiesi, että Ehlertillä oli tavallisesti siellä sisällä joltisestikin

rahaa. Hänen läsnäollessaan oli kauppias sieltä kerran ottanut
setelit, joilla maksoi Schornin laskun.
 Rassmannin päähän pälkähti pirullinen ajatus.

Mitähän, jos hän tosiaankin löytäisi rahaa pulpetin laatikosta?

Silloin ei hän tarvinnut uudelleen kietoutua vaaralliseen
valheverkkoon, jossa mahdollisesti taittaisi niskansa.

Huimaavalla nopeudella pälkähti tämä hänen päähänsä.

Hän silmäsi ympärilleen — hän oli ypöyksin.

Ikäänkuin paholainen seisoisi hänen takanaan, ajaen häntä

eteenpäin — niin riensi hän ikkunan luo. Silmäys pihalle riitti, että
hän tiesi sen olevan typötyhjän.

Äly oli Rassmannin jättänyt. Seuraavassa hengenvedossa oli hän

vääntänyt avainta ja avannut pulpetin. Kuin kuumeessa leimahtivat
hänen silmänsä, sillä hänen edessään oli kassalaatikko, jossa oli
nippu seteleitä ja muutamia metallirahoja. Kiihtymyksestä vavisten
tarttui hänen kätensä seteleihin.

Miltei mielettömällä kiireellä kääräsi hän setelit sanomalehden

kappaleeseen ja puristi kätensä yhteen, ikäänkuin saalis olisi
toistaiseksi niiden välissä varmimmassa tallessa. Hän laski pulpetin
kannen alas, väänsi avainta ja vetäsi sen pois.

Samassa kuuli hän ulkoa avoimesta ikkunasta Ehlertin äänen

tervehtivän jotakin. Rassmannin valtasi hirveä pelko. Yhtä pian kuin
hänen päähänsä oli pälkähtänyt varkauden ajatus, yhtä pian selvisi
hänelle sen rikollisuus ja hän pelkäsi paljastusta.

"Pois, pois!" huusi ääni hänen sisimmässään.

 Hän avasi lasioven, astui varastohuoneeseen eikä nähnyt
Schornia vieläkään. Kuitenkaan ei tämän työ vielä voinut olla
lopussa, sillä hänen takkinsa, tuttu työtakkinsa riippui tuolin
selustalla.

Rassmann kuuli nyt, kuinka eteisestä konttoriin vievä ovi avattiin.

Ehlert tietenkin astui sisään. Ja yhä hirveämmäksi tuli hänen
pelkonsa.
Hiki helmeili jo hänen otsallaan. Oikealla oli muuan ikkuna auki, se
antoi pihalle; sinne täytyi hänen mennä.

Varastettu omaisuus poltti kuin tuli hänen kättänsä. Hän tahtoi

heittää nipun pois, sinne, missä seisoi, erään kaapin taa
piiloutuneena, aivan edessään tuoli, jonka selustalla Schornin takki
riippui.

Hänet valtasi silloin toinen helvetillinen ajatus, pirullisin, mikä

konsanaan on ihmisen päähän pälkähtänyt.

Jos Schornia pidettäisiin varkaana, jos vaimo ja talo jäisivät ilman

vartijaa? Jos hän —

Rassmannin käsi seteleineen ojentui vielä kerran ja kaivautui

Schornin rintataskuun.

Sitte kumartui hän ikkunankarmin ylitse ja heilahdutti itsensä ulos.

Kukaan ei häntä nähnyt. Hän uskoi ainakin niin. Ja kuitenkin oli
viereisestä pihasta hänet nähnyt joku, joka ei sillä hetkellä voinut
agitaattorin kummallista käyttäymistä ymmärtää. Tämä oli herra
Antonius Pätzoldt. —
 Rassmann oli jälleen kadulla. Ensin tuntui hänestä kuin hänen
täytyisi juosta paikalta kuten tavallisen varkaan, jolla ovat takaa-
ajajat kintereillä; mutta sitten rauhottui hän jälleen.

Oliko hän sitte yleensä mikään varas? Oliko hänellä mitään

varastettua tavaraa? Ei — niiden täytyy löytyä Schornilta. Mutta
omatunto, omatunto! — "Viisi siitä!" tuumi hän sisimmässään. "Se on
tapahtunut eikä sitä voi muuttaa. On oltava levollinen, se on pääasia.
Miksi täytyikään hänellä, Schornilla, olla enempi kuin minulla? Miksi
täytyi hänen itsensä kiinnittää huomiotani siihen, ettei kellään
ihmisellä ole oikeutta ylellisyyteen, kun toiselta puuttui
välttämättöminkin? Miksi täytyi juuri hänellä olla vaimo, joka sopii
minulle paremmin kuin hänelle? Nyt on oltava levollinen —
välinpitämätön, jottei kenessäkään herää epäluuloja, ennakoita, ja
lopulta on sinun, mikä oli hänen!"

Mutta mihin oli hänen nyt mentävä? Jäisikö hän pariksi tunniksi
kokonaan pois talosta, antaakseen lähimpäin tapausten tapahtua
selkänsä takana? Ei, se ei ollut viisasta. Hänen piti mennä kotiin niin
huomaamatta kuin mahdollista ja olla olevinaan mitään aavistamatta.

Ja kuitenkin vapisi agitaattori ajatellessaan yhtä hetkeä, jona

Schornia täydyttiin epäillä varkaudesta. Kunpa se hetki olisi ollut
ohitse — olisi hän antanut kymmenen vuotta elämästään.

Ajatellessaan käveli hän verkalleen katua vasemmalle, Se päättyi

parin talon takana Schornin talosta. Siellä alkoi eräänlainen
puutarhamaa. Schornin puutarha ulottui erääseen peltoon kiinni.
Viimeksi mainitusta saattoi helposti päästä puutarhaan nousemalla
matalan aidan ylitse.
 Rassmann astuskeli ympärilleen katselematta ajotien ylitse —
kädet seläntakana, aivan kuin ihminen, jolla ei ole mitään kiirettä.
Mutta hänen levollisuutensa oli hirvittävä.

Hän kulki talojen ympäri, kulki maa-alueen ylitse ja heitti siellä

avaimen pois. Sitte kulki hän pitkin lauta-aidan vartta ja oli Schornin
puutarhan vieressä. Ainoalla ponnahduksella oli hän aidan ylitse —
hän ei nähnyt ketään, ei rouva Schorniakaan, joka kai oli puodissa.
Hän kuuli kisällien viheltelyn, laulun ja työtouhun, mutta kukaan ei
pannut häntä merkille. Hän oli eteisessä. Hän kulki hiljaa portaita
ylös ja oli taas huoneessaan. Hän riisui takkinsa, saappaansa, pani
tohvelit jalkaansa, pisti piippuun ja istuutui työpöytänsä ääreen, jota
peittivät kaikenlaiset paperit, Hän alkoi selailla ja kirjottaa ja oli joka
hetki valmis näyttämään siltä kuin ei olisi tunnin aikaan ollut poissa
tältä paikalta.

Parin minuutin kuluttua astui nuori mestarinrouva koputtamatta

sisään.
Hän pelästyi.

"Luulin, ettette olisi lainkaan täällä, Gustav" — sanoi hän. "Aioin

juuri siistiä huoneessa."

Rassmann oli olevinaan mitä levollisin.

"Missäs sitte — en ole vielä ollut poissa lainkaan, Hanna", vastasi

hän; mutta hän ei hypähtänyt pystyyn, kuten ennen, osottaakseen
rouvalle rakastavaisuuttaan.

Hanna pani sen kyllä merkille, hän tahtoi tehdä jonkun

huomautuksen, mutta samalla aukeni alhaalla puodin ovi.
 "Tuo ikuinen soiminen", sanoi hän miltei ynseästi. Samalla katosi
hän.

Agitaattori uskalsi minuuttien jälkeen ensi kerran oikein hengittää.

——

Herra Ehlert kaipasi kohta pulpetin avainta. Naapuriin

pistäydyttyään muisti hän unhottaneensa avaimen unhotustaan
korjaamaan suulle ja palasi kohta pikku unohdustaan korjaamaan.

Nyt löysi hän pulpetin lukittuna, mutta ei löytänyt avainta.

Hän etsi lattialta, pulpetin päältä — hän ei löytänyt.

Sellaisissa onnettomissa tapauksissa ollaan mielellään taipuvaiset

itseään pettämään ja ottamaan lukuun kaikkia mahdollisia tapauksia.

Herra Ehlert petti myös itseään, luullen, että oli sittekin ottanut
avaimen pois. Kentiesi oli hän sen jättänyt naapuriin. Hänellä oli
tapana pitää sitä usein kädessään ja oli mahdollisesti pannut sen
puhuessaan jollekin pöydälle. Hän etsi toistamiseen, mutta avainta ei
löytynyt. Hän etsi taipaleelta, kadulta, eteisestä, hän etsi vielä kerran
konttorista, hän meni varastohuoneeseen, jossa Schorn rauhallisesti
työskenteli, ja etsi myös sieltä — turhaan.

"Ajatelkaas vain, Schorn, minun avaimeni on poissa", sanoi hän.

"Ja minä tiedän varmaan, että jätin sen pulpetin suulle."

Schorn kohotti katseensa. Häntä pelästytti, kun avain oli ollut

pulpetin suulla. Hän ei ollut kuullut kenenkään tulevan sisälle, hän oli
Ehlertin poissaollessa yksin liikkeessä ja kauppias oli hänelle
sanonut lähtiessään: "Menen pariksi minuutiksi pois, herra Schorn,
olkaa hyvä ja katsokaa, jos ketä tulee —"
 Tosin oli hänkin tuskin pariksi minuutiksi pistäytynyt kellariin,
etsimään puupukkia, mutta eihän tällä lyhyellä ajalla kukaan voinut
—

Hän ei pitänyt tätä edes mainitsemisen arvoisanakaan.

"Mutta eihän se voi olla mahdollista, herra Ehlert, täällä ei ollut

ketään paitsi minua. Olette kentiesi, hukannut avaimen, jättänyt sen
johonkin —"

"Ei, ei, niin se on, muistan aivan hyvin, että se jäi suulle. Olin juuri
ennen lähtöäni pannut joukon pankkiseteleitä pikku kassalaatikkoon.
Minun täytyy lähettää noutamaan lukkoseppää."

Sana "pankkiseteleitä" herätti kohta Schornin mielessä

onnettoman aavistuksen; tuossa tuokiossa valtasi hänet suuri
levottomuus. Rahat, rahat — niitä ei hän ollut ajatellutkaan. Hän
kalpeni ja sopersi:

"Oliko summa suuri?"

Nuori mestari näytti kokonaan muuttuneelta. Että hän oli yksin ollut
lähistössä, ettei hän ollut kuullut kenenkään käyvän konttoorissa,
että Ehlert väitti jättäneensä avaimen ovelle — tämä sai melkein
hänen verensä jähmettymään.

Eikä hän kuitenkaan tiennyt tehneensä mitään pahaa!

Mutta mies sellainen kuin Schorn, jonka koko elämä on ollut

tahraton, käsittää muutamassa minuutissa aseman, jossa on
kysymys hänen persoonallisesta kunniastaan.

Ehlert ei tällä hetkellä epäillyt Schornia vähintäkään.

 Olisihan se ollutkin mieletöntä! Tämä rehellisyyden esikuva, jonka
vakava elämä oli tullut sananlaskuksi, olisi —

Ainoastaan muodon vuoksi kysyi kauppias:

"Ettekö tosiaankaan ole kenenkään nähnyt tulevan sisälle?"

"En, en, herra Ehlert — olin aivan yksin."

Schorn sanoi tämän suurella kiireellä. Häntä ahdisti selittämätön

tunne, joka hirvittävän vuoren raskaudella painoi hänen rintaansa.

"No, sepäs selittämätöntä — en voi tehdä kerrassaan mitään —

ennenkuin pääsen pulpettiini", sanoi Ehlert jälleen.

Hän haetti lukkosepän ja avautti pulpetin.

Ainoa silmäys riitti kauppiaalle, etteivät rahat, jotka hän muuan

tunti sitte oli sinne pannut, olleet enää siellä. Puuttui 250 markkaa
pienemmissä seteleissä. Ehlert tiesi sen tarkoin, sillä hän oli
summan merkinnyt kohta merkkaustaululle; samoin setelien
numerot. Viimeksi mainitun teki hän tavallisesti aina.

Nyt hän todellakin tuohtui. Rahat olivat varastetut, avain samoin.

Siitä ei ollut enää epäilystäkään. Mutta kuka oli varas?

Schorn väitti olleensa yksin läheisyydessä eikä nähneensä

kenenkään tulevan konttooriin. Hänen olisi silloin täytynyt kuulla
ainakin ovikellon soivan.

Ehlert päästi lukkosepän menemään ja alkoi kävellä pitkin askelin

huoneessa edestakaisin. Hän ei tiennyt mitä hänen oli sanottava
tästä arvotuksellisesta asiasta. Nyt johtui hänen mieleensä Schornin
äkillinen muutos, hänen kalpeutensa, hänen kummallinen
levottomuutensa. Hän pysähtyi kävelystään ja tuijotti eteensä.
Ajatus, joka hänessä heräsi, näytti hänestä niin pelottavalta, ettei
hän voinut pitää siitä kiinni. Ja kuitenkin tuli se takaisin.

Olisiko Schorn —

Mutta ei, ei! Ja kuitenkin, miksi oli hän ollut niin rauhaton, miksi
soperrellut! Kenties hetkellinen hairahdus, hurmahenki, joka oli hänet
häikäissyt —

Ehlertin mieleen tunkeutui paha ajatus toisensa jälkeen, ja kaikki

olivat omiaan vahvistamaan epäluuloa Schornia kohtaan. Mutta
ennenkuin Ehlert maineeltaan moitteetonta miestä syytti halvasta
teosta, tahtoi hän päästä varmuuteen. Siihen oli hän velvollinen
Schornin kunniaa ja omaansakin kohtaan.

Hänen vielä koettaessaan kaikessa tyyneydessä harkita asiaa,

astui nuori mestari sisään, takki vedettynä ylleen esiliinan päälle,
saha kainalossa, muut työkalut kädessään. Hän oli lopettanut työnsä
ja oli menossa kotiinsa.

Ehlert oli kuin ei mitään merkillistä olisi tapahtunut.

"Onko työnne jo valmis, herra Schorn?" kysyi hän viattomasti.

Nuori mestari vastasi myöntäen. Samassa hän näki avatun

pulpetin ja kauppiaan rauhallisen ilmeen ja ajatteli itsekseen: Kaikki
on oikein, hän on kadottanut avaimen eikä soisi kernaasti, että
hänen laiminlyöntiinsä palataan.

Ja heti muuttui Schornin kasvojen ilme.

 Innoissaan sanoakseen jotakin alkoi hän puhua korjaustyöstä ja
kertoi siitä seikkaperäisesti.

Ehlert tuskin kuunteli. Jollei Schorn olisi ollut niin yksinkertaisen

luottava, olisi hänen täytynyt huomata siitä tavasta, jolla kauppias
heitti tuontuostakin väliin "jaa, jaa" — "hyvä, hyvä", — kuinka
kiusallinen tämä selitys tänään oli miehelle, joka istui hänen
edessään.

Schorn lähti. Kadulla vihelteli hän hiljaa yksikseen, tietämättä mitä.

Hän oli nähnyt kaiken olevan kunnossa, Ehlertin kuullut puhuvan

vanhaan liikemiehen tapaansa — hän saattoi siis olla taasen vanha
tyytyväinen, onnellinen Schorn.

Mutta Ehlert tiesi mestarin poistuttua vähemmän kuin ennen.

Niin rauhallisesti kuin Schorn juuri oli hänelle puhunut, ei voinut

esiintyä kukaan ihminen, joka puoli tuntia sitte oli samassa
huoneessa tehnyt varkauden ja mahdollisesti kantoi vielä varastettua
tavaraa taskussaan.

Ja juuri Schorn, joka ei koskaan voinut teeskennellä, vaan aina

puhui kuten ajatteli ja tunsi!

Mutta selitys täytyi hänen saada sentään. Hänen velvollisuutensa

oli ilmottaa heti poliisille.

Ehlert sulki heti liikehuoneustonsa ja läksi taipaleelle.

Poliisihuoneuston lähellä kohtasi hän Schornin kunnianarvoisan
kilpailijan, joka samoin teki työtä Ehlertille.

Tällä kelpo miehellä oli heti valmiina sangen merkillinen uutinen.

 Se tosin ei häneen kuulunut, mutta mielelläänhän siitä puhui.

"Äskettäin oli Schorn luonani ja tahtoi lainata minulta kuusisataa

taalaria. Sellaista ei ole vielä tapahtunut. Asia näytti olevan hänelle
kiireinen. Valitettavasti en voinut niitä hänelle antaa. Hän meni silloin
X:n luo, alhaalla Pitkäkadulla, mutta tällä oli joutavaa ainoastaan
viisisataa taalaria, vaikkakin Schorn sanoi tarvitsevansa tärkeään
asiaan juuri kuusisataa. Tiedättekö jo siitä, herra Ehlert? Ei kuulu
tosin minulle, mutta omituinen asia on. Kaupungilla puhutaan niin
paljo. — Hänen liiketoverinsa, tuo Rassmann, josta ei tule hullua
viisaammaksi, lienee tehnyt vekselivelkoja, ja niihin sanotaan
Schornin tarvinneen rahaa. Yleensä yhteiselämä nyt tässä
perheessä — ja vaimo — kevytmielinen talous —"

Rehellinen poroporvari oli juuri päässyt puheen vauhtiin, ja kun oli

niin hyvä kävellä ja puhua Ehlertin rinnalla, ei hän pannut vakan alle
sitä kynttilää, jolla viime aikoina oli totuttu Schornin avioparin ja
"toverin" elämää valaisemaan.

"Kuten sanottu, oikea sosialidemokraattinen talous,

kommunistinen valtio pienoismuodossa, herra Ehlert." Täten päätti
rakastettava pikkuporvari, jättäen huonekalukauppiaan asiaksi
muodostaa haahmotelluista ulkopiirteistä täydellinen, valmis kuva.

Ehlert, joka oli sivistynyt mies ja liikkunut paljo suuremmissa

kaupungeissa paremmissa seurapiireissä, tunsi kyllä ne huhut, jotka
Schornin perheestä kiertelivät; mutta hän arvosteli niitä toisin kuin
tämä ammattipuhuja. Hän ei kuulunut niihin miehiin, jotka huolehtivat
enemmän muiden asioista kuin omistaan. Siitä syystä oli Schorn
hänestä yhä sama ahkera, rehellinen työmies, jolle ammattinsa oli
kaikkea muuta korkeammalla.
 Mutta se, mitä hän juuri oli kuullut, pani hänet ajattelemaan.
Schornilla oli vekseli maksettavana. Hän tahtoi saada kuusisataa,
mutta sai ainoastaan viisi? Jos häneltä puuttui juuri sata taalaria
velkamiehensä tyydyttämiseksi, jos hän ei niitä mistään voinut saada
ja epätoivon ajamana —?

Ehlert ei uskaltanut ajatella ajatustaan loppuun. "Ei, ei, — silloin

olisi hän tullut minun luokseni ja sanonut vapaasti ja suoraan: herra
Ehlert, tarvitsen sata taalaria — ja minä olisin antanut ne heti
hänelle. Schornin täytyi se tietää", tuumi hän yksikseen.

Hän ei voinut selittää, miksi vanha epäluulo palasi yhä uudestaan.

Poliisikonttorissa ilmotti hän varkauden.

Muuan virkamies seurasi häntä heti paikalle. Tutkittiin, kerrottiin,

kuulusteltiin muilta talon asukkailta, olivatko he nähneet ketään,
johon epäluulot saattoivat kohdistua, ja yhä palattiin Schorniin.
Poliisivirkamies oli tämän syyttömyydestä yhtä vakuutettu kuin
Ehlert, mutta laki vaati. Täytyi kuulustella, toimeenpanna tarpeellisia
tutkimuksia, mahdollisesti pitää kotitarkastus nuoren mestarin luona.

Herra Ehlertistä, joka monet vuodet oli Schornin kanssa ollut

liikesuhteissa, oli se pöyristävää, sillä hän asettui tämän asemaan,
mutta kuitenkin, kuitenkin —!

Ikuinen epäluottamus! Eikö Schorn ollut ihminen kuten kaikki

muutkin?
Eikö hän voinut rikkoa kuten hänen rakkaat lähimmäisensäkin?

Ehlert sopi virkamiehen kanssa, että Schornia kohdeltaisiin

ystävällisesti. Mutta heidän kulkiessaan katua Schornin taloa
kohden, tuntui heistä molemmista kuin eivät olisi koskaan tehneet
vaikeampaa vierailua.
XIV

"Ehlertiltä on varastettu", juteltiin naapuristossa muutamia minuutteja

virkamiehen saapumisen jälkeen. "Epäillään Schornia", lisättiin
puoliääneen ja epävarmasti.

"Schornia?" Se oli kuulumatonta.

"Kyllä", sanoi Ehlertin talon kolmannen kerroksen asukas

kauppiaalla kadun kulmassa. "Kyllä, olen nähnyt poliisin juuri
kulkevan isäntäni kera sinne — Schornia epäillään." — "Se on
kuulemma suuri summa", lisäsi toinen, ja "kuningasmielinen"
Antonius Pätzoldtin kuningashuoneesta, joka juuri saapui, väitti, että
oli tehty oikein murtovarkaus, hänen "rakas" miehensä oli sen
sanonut, ja myöskin sen, että Schorn oli tosiaankin varas.

Samalla loisti oikea vahingonilo pitkän, muumiomaisen olennon

vetisistä silmistä.

"Mutta minä en tahdo sanoa mitään", lisäsi hän kohta. "Oh, en

minäkään —" — "En minäkään —" kuului kuorossa, mutta se ei
kuitenkaan estänyt näitä herttaisia sieluja pistämästä päitään yhteen
ja antamasta kotona palaa päivälliskeiton pohjaan.
 Mitä kaikkia juttuja taasen tuotiinkaan esiin!

Rouva Schorn, jos olisit kaiken kuullut, olisi vajonnut häpeästä

maan alle!

Schorn oli kotiin saavuttuaan mennyt suoraa päätä työpajaansa.

Kello oli tuskin kaksitoista, ja hänellä oli vielä niin paljo mitattavaa,
järjestettävää ja puuhattavaa, ettei hän voinut suoda itselleen
lyhyttäkään lepoa päivällisille asti. Hän riisui takkinsa kuten
tavallisesti ja pani sen tavalliseen paikkaansa ikkunan viereen.

Sitte meni hän hetkiseksi puotiin ja kertoi vaimolleen avaimesta,

jonka "luultiin" kadonneen, ja siitä peljästyksestä, joka hänet sen
johdosta oli vallannut.

"Ajatteles vain, Hannaseni! Pulpetissa oli rahaa ja minä olin koko

ajan yksin saapusalla. Kylmät väreet karmivat luitani ja ytimiäni.
Sellainen voi saada rehellisimmänkin epäluulon alaiseksi, mutta
luojan kiitos — kaikki on tullut jälleen kuntoon."

Ja kunnon Schorn pyyhki taskuliinallaan otsaansa, ikäänkuin sillä

olisivat vielä hikipisarat.

Sitte kysyi hän Rassmannia.

"Hän on istunut parisen tuntia ylhäällä kirjottamassa", vastasi

Hanna huolettomasti; ja nuori mestari sanoi jälleen:

"Ah — tiedän, tiedän — hänellä on tärkeää työtä. Silloin en tahdo

häntä häiritä."

Näin sanoen palasi hän työpajaansa.

 Rassmann ei ollut poistunut huoneestaan sen jälkeen kuin oli
sinne hiipinyt. Mitä hän tällaikaa teki, ei hän tiennyt itsekään.

Jokainoa minuutti meni hän ikkunan luo ja silmäili työpajaan,

voisiko hän jo nähdä Schornia. Ja jokainen silmänräpäys oli hänelle
pitkä kuin iankaikkisuus.

Hän oli luullut helpommaksi näytellä tätä levollisuutta kuin se

todellisuudessa oli. Joka kerta, kun hän kuuli alhaalta liikettä tai
askeleita, vävähti hän ja värisi. Pelko, sietämätön pelko lamautti
hänen jäseniään. Jos hänet kuitenkin oli nähty, jos oli huomattu
hänen hyppäävän ikkunasta, jos Schorn ei olisi ollutkaan poissa
huoneesta vaan jonkin huonekalun taakse piiloutuneena olisi
katsellut hänen kurjaa tekoaan, jos — Rassmann ei tiennyt, mitä
kaikkea hän ajatteli. Äkkiä johtui hänen mieleensä, että hän
roistomaisesti aikoessaan päästä ympäristönsä omistajaksi oli
kokonaan unhottanut Samuel Hirschin uhkauksen.

Hän tulisi kahden aikaan esittämään vekselin Schornille, itselleen.

Tuhattulimainen! Se oli tuhoova pyyhkäys laskujen ylitse! Toveri
saattaisi olla ensimäinen epäilemään kotiystäväänsä! Jos hänet olisi
vielä nähty Ehlertin talossa, silloin kohtaisivat pahan ilman linnut
toisensa, ja hänen toiveensa vaimoon ja taloon nähden olisivat
lopussa.

"Retkaleesta" olisi silloin tullut rikoksellinen.

Rassmannista oli kuin huoneen katto vierisi hänen päänsä ylitse

hänet musertaakseen; hänestä oli kuin ilma äkkiä kuumentuisi ja
vaikeuttaisi hänen hengityksensä, kuin täytyisi hänen huudahtaa
raivosta, vihasta ja pelosta. Hän toivoi olevansa sadan peninkulman
päässä, yhden ainoan minuutin vuoksi, joka toisi hänelle varmuuden.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookmass.com