Forensic Psychology

by Graham M Davies

  Using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods, Bahr, Harris, Fisher and Armstrong (2010) explored factors associated with successful re-entry into the community (defined as successful completion of parole) in the three years following prison release using a sample of 51 offenders who had committed felonies and spent at least one year in prison (drug offences were the most common). The authors drew upon Laub and Sampson’s life-course theory (2001, 2003) and hypothesised that drug treatment, peer associations, employment, age, marriage/cohabitation, and parenthood would be associated with success. Parolees were interviewed shortly after release and again at one, three and six months following the first interview. Attending a substance abuse programme in prison and spending more time in enjoyable activities with friends were both associated with success. Also, among the employed parolees, working at least 40 hours per week was associated with success. Contrary to predictions, having a partner, being married, being a parent, being close to parents and education level were not associated with greater re-entry success. That said, qualitative data showed that successful parolees had more support from family and friends and more self-efficacy, which both helped in participants’ efforts to stay away from drugs.

  In a Canadian study, Martin and Stermac (2010) sought to investigate whether hope was related to risk for recidivism and whether male (50) and female (50) inmates differed in their levels of hope. There was a significant negative correlation between total scores on a measure of hope (Hope Scale) and the LSI-OR (a measure of recidivism risk) indicating that higher levels of hope were related to a lower estimated risk of recidivism (r = -.26, p < .05). However, looking at the subscales of the Hope Scale in isolation (pursuing goals, agency, and pathways), only the agency scale was related to risk of recidivism (higher agency = lower risk estimate). A regression analysis was conducted to determine the unique predictors of recidivism. The predictor variables were the Hope Scale (total score and subscales), Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) scores, Means-End Problem Solving (MEPS) scores, Social Problem Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R) scores, demographics and criminal history variables, and the outcome variable was LSI-OR scores. Results indicated that the agency subscale of the Hope Scale, ethnicity (no further explanation given), and the total score on the MEPS were all unique contributors in predicting LSI-OR scores, collectively explaining 29% of the variance in risk for future criminality. In terms of sex differences, women tended to have slightly lower Hope Scale scores than men (p < .05). The authors concluded that hope may be a protective factor, lessening the risk of involvement in future crime – but acknowledged that the correlational nature of this study means that causation cannot be inferred.

  Most studies examining the relationship between employment and recidivism have simply considered whether employment decreases the likelihood of further offending and few studies have investigated whether obtaining employment increases time to reoffend. Tripodi, Kim, and Bender (2010) investigated this relationship utilising a random sample (n = 250) of men on parole from Texas prisons. They found that when controlling for offence history variables and other known predictors of recidivism, obtaining employment on release from prison was not associated with a significant decrease in likelihood of reincarceration, but was associated with a significantly greater time to reincarceration (compared to recidivists who were not employed). The authors noted the consistency of their findings with conceptualisations of desistance (see below) from crime as a process rather than an outcome. Findings suggest that motivation to remain crime-free might lessen over time, and the authors encourage the use of motivational interviewing and other motivational enhancing techniques to assist offenders in remaining focussed on long-term prosocial goals.

  PHOTO 23.3 Most studies examining the relationship between employment and recidivism have simply considered whether employment decreases the likelihood of further offending and few studies have investigated whether obtaining employment increases time to reoffend.

  Source: Construction Photography/Alamy Stock Photo

  Bouman, Schene, and de Ruiter (2009) examined the relationship between subjective wellbeing (SWB) and (1) self-reported offending over a three-month period and (2) officially recorded recidivism at a three-year follow-up amongst personality disordered patients (n = 135). Subjective wellbeing was assessed using the Dutch version of the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile, which measures internal wellbeing and external wellbeing. Internal wellbeing is measured using the positive and negative self-esteem subscales of Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale, and two subscales of the Life Regard Index, more specifically the Framework scale (assesses “the degree to which individuals can envision their lives within some meaningful perspective or have derived a set of life-goals or philosophy of life from these”) and the Fulfilment scale (“measures the degree to which people see themselves as having fulfilled or as being in the process of fulfilling their framework life-goals”). External wellbeing is measured using subjective ratings in six domains: leisure and social participation; finances; family; living circumstances; health; and safety. A global measure of SWB was also included (life rating 0–100 with 0 = life at its worst and 100 = life at its best). Controlling for risk level, general SWB did not show an inverse relationship with self-reported offending in the short-term; however, two specific indicators – satisfaction with health and life fulfilment – did predict decreased self-reported violent and general offences. Controlling for risk level, no SWB indicators were associated with reduced recidivism in the longer term (at three-year follow-up). “However, satisfaction with health and general life satisfaction did buffer a high risk level for violent reconvictions after a 3 year follow up” (Bouman, et al., 2009, p. 231). The authors concluded that “subjective well-being seems to have a stronger effect on short-term delinquent behaviour than on longer-term reconvictions, although for high-risk patients, there was also an effect on the longer term” (p. 232).

  A closer analysis of what programmes are effective indicates that those that adhere to the principles of risk, need and responsivity reliably result in greater reductions in reoffending rates (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010). In brief, the risk principle specifies that the intensity of treatment should be informed by an individual’s assessed risk of reoffending (high risk = high intensity treatment, low risk = minimal or no treatment). The need principle states that treatment should target dynamic risk factors (i.e. criminogenic needs such as crime supportive attitudes, deviant sexual arousal, impulsivity) that are causally related to criminal behaviour, and that minimal or no attention should be given to noncriminogenic needs (e.g. self-esteem). Finally, the responsivity principle informs how treatment is delivered, and can be divided into general responsivity (i.e. selecting empirically supported treatment models and methods) and specific responsivity (i.e. matching the delivery of correctional interventions to certain characteristics of participants such as motivation, learning style and ethnic identity). Furthermore, there are a number of resilience or desistance factors associated with successful crime reduction, including access to social models that promote a non-offending lifestyle, employment, a stable emotional relationship, good social support, cognitive competencies, development of an adequate self-concept, and the acquisition of a sense of meaning in life (Fox, 2015; Laws & Ward, 2011; Lösel, 2010; Maruna, 2001). There is a growing convergence between the findings of desistance, programme evaluations, and resilience research traditions that shows it is not enough to concentrate on the technical aspects of interventions. Indeed, the message is clear that practitioners and policy makers ought to take greater care to ensure programmes are responsive to offenders’ personal goals and incorporate social and community groups in any intervention plans (Marshall, Marshall, Serran, & Fernandez, 2006; Maruna & Roy, 2007; Sampson & Laub, 1993). In a nutshell, it is a mistake to continue looking exclusively inwards towards the person and to ignore, or downplay, the important role of social relationships and community involvement in the rehabilitation process (Fox, 2015; Laws & Ward,
2011; McNeill, 2006; Ward & Beech, 2015).

  The above brief review of what works in correctional programmes and interventions stresses the crucial role of social supports, self-transformation, acquiring a sense of meaning, and competency building. The default etiological assumption appears to be that offending is a product of faulty social learning and individuals commit offences because they have a number of skill deficits that make it difficult for them to seek reinforcement in socially acceptable ways (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Laws & Ward, 2011; Ward & Laws, 2010; Ward, Polaschek, & Beech, 2006). Thus, the primary mechanisms underpinning offending are thought to be social and psychological, although it is acknowledged that some individuals’ antisocial actions are partly caused by dysfunctional biological mechanisms such as abnormal hormonal functioning (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Ward et al., 2006). The major goal is to teach offenders skills to change the way they think, feel and act, and to use this knowledge to avoid or escape from future high-risk situations. There are usually discrete treatment modules devoted to the following problem areas: cognitive distortions; deviant sexual interests; social skill deficits; impaired problem solving and cognitive skills; empathy deficits; intimacy deficits; emotional regulation difficulties; impulsivity; lifestyle imbalance; substance abuse; and post-offense adjustment or relapse prevention (Bonta & Andrews, 2010; Ward & Maruna, 2007). Increasingly, there is greater attention paid to the utility of orientating treatment and interventions towards approach or positive goals rather than being exclusively preoccupied with risk reduction (Heffernan & Ward, in press; Laws & Ward, 2011; Ward, 2014). This has the advantage of capitalising on individuals’ natural predispositions towards prudential outcomes and also makes it much easier to assist them in the construction of more adaptive self-schemas or narratives. These rehabilitation perspectives have been labelled strength-based approaches because they provide the resources to enable offenders to implement ways of living that centre upon their preferences and ultimately, core values.

  23.4 DESISTANCE FROM CRIME

  The shift in focus evident in recent correctional and forensic rehabilitation interventions indicates movement towards greater use of community resources and an appreciation of what have been called “desistance factors” (Laws & Ward, 2011). In contrast to the forensic psychology literature’s focus on factors implicated in offending and reoffending, the desistance literature seeks to understand the lifestyle change process associated with disengagement from crime (Laws & Ward, 2011; Serin & Lloyd, 2009). To suggest that a reduction in dynamic risk factors solely explains desistance, in our view, is unconvincing. Such an explanation is arguably somewhat simplistic and ignores the normative dimension of human action – the fact that human beings actively seek outcomes that are personally meaningful and valued (Ward & Maruna, 2007). The desistance literature unravels how offenders effect change to dynamic risk factors, and therefore provides a richness not captured by the forensic psychology literature (Laws & Ward, 2011; McNeill, 2006). Available evidence indicates that there are a number of social and psychological factors that facilitate the desistance process (Laws & Ward, 2011). These events are variously referred to, for example, as “turning points” (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Sampson & Laub, 1993), “hooks for change” (Giordano, Schroeder, & Cernkovich, 2007), a “change in narrative identity” (McNeill et al., 2005), or “making good” (Maruna, 2001).

  Perhaps the most influential contributions to the desistance literature in recent years are those of Laub and Sampson (Laub & Sampson, 2001; Sampson & Laub, 1993) and Maruna (2001). Laub and Sampson conducted an extended and comprehensive follow-up of men from Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck’s landmark research (Glueck & Glueck, 1950, 1968) on factors that differentiated serious and persistent delinquent boys from a matched group of nondelinquent boys. Laub and Sampson found that conventional adult social bonds such as marriage and employment explained variations in crime that could not be predicted by other variables such as childhood adversity. Specifically, they found that strong social bonds, for example, strong marital attachment and job stability, could facilitate the lifestyle change required for criminal desistance. Their findings have been echoed throughout the desistance literature (e.g. Graffam, Shinkfield, Lavelle, & McPherson, 2004; Maruna, 2001; Petersilia, 2003; Uggen, 2000), and parallel findings have been reported in the forensic psychology literature (e.g. Hanson & Harris, 2000; Hanson & Morton- Bourgon, 2005). Laub and Sampson also replicated the longstanding finding in criminology that the frequency of offending decreases with age (e.g. see Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), and acknowledged the role of human agency, noting that men who desisted played an active role in the desistance process through making choices to disengage from crime. Maruna (2001) replicated Laub and Sampson’s findings regarding the importance of social bonds, but also found that human agency or cognitive transformation (i.e. creation of a new, more adaptive narrative identity) was the key to desistance. In sum, both external factors (e.g. social support, access to employment opportunities) and internal factors (e.g. making a conscious decision to want a different life) are required to facilitate the lifestyle change process associated with desistance.

  To recap our argument so far. The concept of offender rehabilitation is at its core a deeply normative one that manifests in individual lives in the construction of practical or narrative identities, and at the social level in terms of correctional policy directed at risk reduction and management. However, it is increasingly apparent that theories of offender rehabilitation need to cast their net widely and seek to equip offenders with the values and competencies to live more satisfying lives while also reducing their reoffending risk. The two most prominent correctional theories of rehabilitation, the RNR and the Good Lives Model (GLM) prioritise different aspects of this equation: the RNR is focused primarily on risk management while the GLM has a primary interest in enhancing offender wellbeing, while not ignoring risk. We will now discuss each of these theories in turn.

  23.5 THE RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITY MODEL OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION

  The risk management approach to offender rehabilitation emerged from Andrews and Bonta’s seminal book, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (PCC; Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The PCC sought to explain criminal behaviour through empirically derived predictors of recidivism using what Andrews and Bonta termed a general personality and social psychology perspective. The PCC provides three empirically based principles aimed at reducing offenders’ risk of recidivism: risk, need, and responsivity (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990), which are commonly referred to in the forensic psychology literature as the RNR model of offender rehabilitation, a term synonymous with the risk management approach. Hence, an underlying assumption of the risk management approach is that offenders are bearers of risk for recidivism, and the primary aim of offender rehabilitation is to reduce this recidivism risk through adherence to the RNR principles. As mentioned earlier, the risk principle states that the dosage or intensity of interventions should match an offender’s risk level, such that intensive interventions are directed at high-risk offenders and less intense (or no) interventions are aimed at lower risk offenders. The need principle informs intervention targets, specifically that interventions should target criminogenic needs, also known as dynamic risk factors, which are those factors causally related to offending that, for a given individual, are changeable (Ward & Beech, 2015). Dynamic risk factors include antisocial attitudes and antisocial associates (Andrews & Bonta, 2010), and in the case of sexual offending, deviant sexual interests and self-regulation difficulties (e.g. Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005). The aim of treatment is to reduce dynamic risk factors and, according to the needs principle, directing intervention efforts at non-criminogenic needs such as low self-esteem and a history of victimisation will prove ineffective, given they have not been linked with recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005). Finally, the responsivity principle informs the actual delivery of interventions in order to maximise their efficacy. General responsivity advocates structured cogn
itive behaviour therapy interventions, given its general acceptance as the best treatment currently available for groups such as sex offenders (e.g. Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Hanson et al., 2002). Relapse Prevention (RP; e.g. Laws, 1989) constitute a popular format for delivering CBT with sex offenders (McGrath, Cumming, Burchard, Zeoli, & Ellerby, 2010), and was adapted for use with sex offenders from the addictions treatment literature. Enhancing specific responsivity requires considering cognitive ability, learning style, personality profile, culture, and other characteristics of individual offenders, and delivering treatment accordingly. The RNR has been hugely influential in offender rehabilitation initiatives internationally, forming the basis of correctional treatment since its inception in the early 1990s (Bonta & Andrews, 2010).