Drohungen als Vorboten schwerer Gewalttaten

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Drohungen sind häufige Ereignisse. In der Schweiz machten sie z. B. 2002 2,8 % aller registrierten Einzelstraftaten aus und zeigten eine starke Zunahme. Nur ein geringer Teil der Drohungen wird ausgeführt. Andererseits gehen vielen schweren Gewaltstraftaten Drohungen voraus. Darum wird immer wieder die Frage aufgeworfen, ob die Tat durch eine adäquate Beurteilung der Drohung hätte verhindert werden können. Auch wenn Drohungen weder hinreichende noch notwendige Voraussetzungen für schwere Gewalttaten sind, empfiehlt es sich, jede Drohung ernst zu nehmen und eine Risikobeurteilung vorzunehmen. Es besteht ein breiter Konsens über die Notwendigkeit der Drohungsanalyse, zumal Hinweise aus der Praxis dafür vorliegen, dass mit professionellen Risikoanalysen Straftaten verhindert werden können. Bei der Analyse der Drohung kann wegen der sehr geringen Basisrate schwerer Gewaltdelikte nicht auf profilorientierte (statische) Verfahren zurückgegriffen werden. Vielmehr ist ein prozessorientiertes Vorgehen indiziert, bei dem die Drohung und deren Kontext individuell beurteilt wird. In den bislang durchgeführten Untersuchungen wurden Befunde zu verschiedenen Aspekten von Drohungen vorgelegt, die bei der Beurteilung bestimmter Einzelfälle hilfreich sein können. Neben der konkreten Analyse von Merkmalen der Drohung gilt es, die Täter-Opfer-Beziehung sowie die Persönlichkeit des Täters genau zu analysieren. Es besteht die Aussicht, mit weitergehenden Forschungen ein bislang noch nicht ausreichend genutztes Potenzial zur Prävention schwerer Gewalttaten zu erschließen.

Abstract

Threats are frequent events. For example, in Switzerland in 2002 they accounted for 2.8 % of all registered instantaneous crimes and showed a marked increase. Only a small proportion of threats are actually executed. On the other hand, many serious, violent crimes are preceded by threats. Therefore, the question repeatedly arises as to whether the crime could have been prevented by an adequate assessment of the threat. Even if threatening behavior is not a sufficient or necessary precursor to violent crime, it is advisable to take every threat seriously and to carry out a risk assessment. There is far-reaching agreement on the necessity of threat analysis, especially since there is practical evidence that professional risk analysis can prevent criminal acts. Since the baseline rate for grievous violent crime is very low, it is not possible for threat analysis to rely on profile-oriented (static) procedures. Rather, a process-oriented approach is indicated, whereby each threat is assessed in its individual context. Investigations so far have presented findings relating to different aspect of threats that can be helpful in the evaluation of specific, individual cases. In addition to specific analysis of the characteristics of the threat, it is essential to perform a detailed analysis of the relationship between the offender and the victim and of the offender's personality. It is to be expected that more extensive research will make it possible to benefit from an as yet inadequately exploited potential to prevent violent crime.

Literatur

• 1 Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik .Polizeilich ermittelte Straftaten und Tatverdächtige nach Art der Straftat. Schweizer Bundesamt für Polizei 2002
  Google Scholar
• 2 Vossekuil B, Reddy M, Fein R. USSS .Safe School Initiative: An interim report on the prevention of targeted violence in schools. US Secret Service, National Threat Assessment Center 2000
  Google Scholar
• 3 Dietz P E, Matthews D B, van Duyne C, Martell D A, Parry C DH, Stewart T M. et al . Threatening and otherwise inappropriate letters to Hollywood Celebrities.  Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1991;  36 185-209
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Shore D, Filson C R, Davies T S, Olivos G, DeLisi L, Wyatt R J. White House cases: Psychiatric patients and the Secret Service.  The American Journal of Psychiatry. 1985;  142 308-312
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Scalora M J, Baumgartner J V, Plank G L. The relationship of mental illness to targeted contact behavior toward state government agencies and officials.  Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2003;  21 239-249
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Meloy J R. Threats, stalking, and criminal harassment. In: Pinard G-F, Pagani L (eds.). Threats, stalking, and criminal harassment. New York: Cambridge University Press 2001: 238-257
  Google Scholar
• 7 O'Toole M E. The School Shooter: A threat assessment perspective. FBI Academy, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, Critical Incident Response Group 2000
  Google Scholar
• 8 Yudofsky S C, Silver J M, Jackson W, Endicott J, Williams D. The Overt Aggression Scale for the objective rating of verbal and physical aggression.  The American Journal of Psychiatry. 1986;  143 45-49
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Hillbrand M. Threatening and non-threatening verbal aggression as predictors of physical aggression in violent psychiatric patients.  Journal of Threat Assessment. 2000;  1 63-74
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Harmon R B, Rosner R, Owens H. Obsessional harassment and erotomania in a criminal court population.  Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1995;  40 188-196
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 McNiel D E, Binder R L. Relationship between preadmission threats and later violent behavior by acute psychiatric inpatients.  Hospital and Community Psychiatry. 1989;  40 605-608
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Palarea R E, Zona M A, Lane J C, Langhinrichsen-Rohling J. The dangerous nature of intimate relationship stalking: Threats, violence, and associated risk factors.  Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 1999;  17 269-283
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Bernstein H A. Survey of threats and assaults directed toward psychotherapists.  American Journal of Psychotherapy. 1981;  35 542-549
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Coverdale J, Gale C, Week S, Turbott S. A survey of threats and violent acts by patients against training physicians.  Medical Education. 2001;  35 154-159
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Menckel E, Viitasara E. Threats and violence in Swedish care and welfare-magnitude of the problem and impact on municipal personnel.  Scand J Caring Sci. 2002;  16 376-385
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Schulte J M, Nolt B J, Williams R L, Spinks C L, Hellstein J J. Violence and threats of violence experienced by public health field-workers.  Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). 1998;  280 439-442
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Kamphuis J H, Emmelkamp P M. Stalking - a contemporary challenge for forensic and clinical psychiatry.  Br J Psychiatry. 2000;  176 206-209
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Kamphuis J H, Emmelkamp P M. Traumatic distress among support-seeking female victims of stalking.  Am J Psychiatry. 2001;  158 795-798
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Del Ben K, Fremouw W. Stalking: developing an empirical typology to classify stalkers.  J Forensic Sci. 2002;  47 152-158
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Brewster M P. Stalking by former intimates: verbal threats and other predictors of physical violence.  Violence Vict. 2000;  15 41-54
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Mullen P E, Pathe M, Purcell R, Stuart G W. Study of stalkers.  Am J Psychiatry. 1999;  156 1244-1249
  Google Scholar
• 22 Zona M, Sharma K, Lane J. A comparative study of erotomanic and obsessional subjects in a forensic sample.  Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1993;  38 894-903
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Fein R, Vossekuil B. Assassination in the United States: An operational study of recent assassins, attackers, and near-lethal approachers.  Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1999;  44 321-333
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Fein R, Vossekuil B. Protective intelligence and threat assessment investigations: A guide for state and law enforcement officials. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice 1998
  Google Scholar
• 25 Borum R, Fein R, Vossekuil B, Berglund J. Threat assessment: Defining an approach for evaluating risk of targeted violence.  Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 1999;  17 323-337
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Meloy J R. Communicated threats and violence toward public and private targets: discerning differences among those who stalk and attack.  J Forensic Sci. 2001;  46 1211-1213
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Meehl P. Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota 1954
  Google Scholar
• 28 Rice M E. Violent offender research and implications for the criminal justice system.  American Psychologist. 1997;  52 414-423
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Grove W, Zald D, Lebow B, Snitz B, Nelson C. Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis.  Psychological Assessment. 2000;  12 19-30
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Swets J, Dawas R, Monahan J. Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions.  Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2000;  1 1-26
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Dietz P E, Matthews D B, Martell D A, Stewart T M, Hrouda D R, Warren J. Threatening and otherwise inappropriate letters to members of the United States Congress.  Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1991;  36 1445-1468
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Werner P, Yesavage J, Becker J V, Brunsting D, Isaacs J. Hostile words and assaultive behaviour on an acute inpatient psychiatric unit.  Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1983;  171 385-387
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 McFarlane J, Campbell J C, Watson K. Intimate partner stalking and femicide: urgent implications for women's safety.  Behav Sci Law. 2002;  20 51-68
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Schwartz-Watts D, Morgan D W. Violent versus nonviolent stalkers.  J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1998;  26 241-245
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Meloy J R, James D V, Farnham F R, Mullen P E, Pathe M, Darnley B. et al . A research review of public figure threats, approaches, attacks, and assassinations in the United States.  J Forensic Sci. 2004;  49 1086-1093
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Scalora M J, Baumgartner J V, Zimmerman W, Callaway D, Hatch-Maillette M A, Covell C N. et al . An epidemiological assessment of problematic contacts to members of Congress.  J Forensic Sci. 2002;  47 1360-1364
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Urbaniok F, Rossegger A, Kherfouche C, Endrass J. Validität von fokalen Risikoeinschätzungen und Interventionsempfehlungen bei Personen mit Anzeichen für kurz- bis mittelfristige Gefährlichkeit. - Eine Evaluationsstudie des Zürcher Kurzgutachtenprojektes. Manuscript submitted for publication
  Google Scholar
• 38 Urbaniok F. Forensisches Operationalisiertes Therapie-Risiko-Evaluations-System. Bern: Zytglogge 2004
  Google Scholar
• 39 Habermeyer E, Hoff P. „Stalking” - a popular conceptualisation of disturbing behaviour with limited practicability for forensic psychiatry.  Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2002;  70 542-547
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Dressing H, Kuehner C, Gass P. Prevalence of stalking in Germany.  Psychiatr Prax. 2005;  32 73-78
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar

 Dipl.-Psych.
Astrid Rossegger

Psychiatrisch-Psychologischer Dienst Justizdirektion Kanton Zürich

Postfach

8090 Zürich

Schweiz

Email: astrid.rossegger@ji.zh.ch