Abstract:Following the French law n° 98-468 of 17 June 1998 relative to the prevention of sexual offenses and the protection of minors, social and judicial follow-up and court-ordered treatment were introduced with the aim of reinforcing the prevention of recidivism. Court-ordered treatment is one of the possible obligatory measures provided for by social and judicial follow-up. However, there is no consensus between the different professionals concerning the criteria of indication and the final purpose of this measure. Most of the few available studies are retrospective. Only rare studies have assessed the influence of criminological factors on the indication of court-ordered treatment. We carried out a nation-wide qualitative comparative study in two populations, psychiatric experts and sentencing judges, by means of e-mail questionnaires. The aim was to determine the criteria for court-ordered treatment according to psychiatric experts and to sentencing judges, to identify the criteria that gave rise to differences in appreciation between these professionals, and to attempt to explain these differences. The secondary aim of the study was to determine the methods and tools used in expert practice to evaluate dangerousness and risk of recidivism. We obtained 20 responses in each of the two populations. The great majority of psychiatric experts and sentencing judges considered that court-ordered treatment was appropriate when the offender presented with psychiatric dangerousness, and so with an underlying mental disorder. When a subject had no identified mental disorder, the psychiatrists were divided in their opinion, whereas the majority of sentencing judges were in favor of court-ordered treatment. Opinions differed particularly significantly between the two populations in four circumstances: a subject with an antisocial/psychopathic personality disorder, a subject who denied the alleged acts, the influence of precarious social circumstances and the influence of instability in intimate relationships. The majority of experts used international classifications (DSM-5 and ICD-10) as a basis for their psychiatric diagnosis. Just under half of those surveyed used structured or semi-structured interview guides and only a few stated that they used standardized actuarial tools to assess risk of recidivism. The concepts of care, dangerousness and mental disorder are associated with multiple representations that certainly play a part in the disagreements between the different professionals. It is of prime importance to define these concepts more clearly in order to encourage the use of a common language and to clarify the indications and purpose of court-ordered treatment. We also hypothesize that disagreements between professionals regarding the criteria for court-ordered treatment may be related to certain difficulties raised by the management of the convicted person. The development of guidelines that could be used by all professionals would help to reduce some of these difficulties. Psychiatric experts remain attached to clinical evaluation. Their limited use of assessment tools may relate to the material constraints and time constraints involved. The issue at stake in court-ordered treatment and social and judicial follow-up is to promote cooperation between the various professionals by creating a space for exchange of ideas where the fundamental questions raised by these measures can be discussed, fears shared and knowledge pooled.

What is social about criminal justice social work in Belgium?

Socially responsible legal aid in Belgian society: time for a thorough rethink?

The Criminology and Forensic Police School: The Twofold Project to Humanize Judicial Practice and to Implement Technical Police in Belgium

Intra-national Similarities and Differences in Social Work and Their Significance for Developing European Dimensions of Research and Education

Radically Rethinking Social Work in the Criminal (in)Justice System in Australia

Editorial: “Social Work Ethics and Values in the Context of Criminal Rehabilitation”

Police social work and community policing

Criminal Law Policy Implementation of Criminal Social Work to Reduce Overcapity Corporate Institutions in Indonesia

Has Probation Any Impact in Terms of Reparation to Victims and Communities? Complicating a Simple Question

Challenges of Social Workers in the Multidisciplinary Team in the Penitentiary System

Restorative justice informed criminal justice social work and probation services

The science of justice: The neuropsychology of social punishment

Exploring Social Interactions in the Context of Justice System Involvement: Perspectives of Patients and Psychiatric Nurses

Forensic criteria, clinical and theoretical issues of the indication of court-ordered treatment: A comparative survey among experts in forensic psychiatry and sentencing judges in France

Criminal Social Work To Overcome Overcapacity In Post-Pandemic Prisons

Different perspectives of prison guards and mental health workers in forensic care

Exploration of Crime-Scene Characteristics in Juvenile Homicide in the French-Speaking Part of Belgium

An Overview of the Criminal Justice System as a Dominant Mechanism for Social Rehabilitation

Healthcare professionals and opposition to court-ordered treatment for offenders: the end of a 'French exception'?

Changes in Probation Officer Procedural Justice and Self-Reported Recidivism

Crime Prevention, Support or Punishment? Introducing an Ambiguous System of Youth Justice in Denmark