The Psychology of Criminal Conduct - Assignment Example

 The Psychology of Criminal Conduct According to the framework of evidence-based practices, the justice agencies are required to match offenders to services based on their need and risk factors (MacKenzie, 2006). However, the risk-need-responsivity, also known as RNR Principles, is difficult to use effectively because the services available for offenders are not always consistent with the needs and risks of the offenders. Further, there are competing issues that complicate the consideration for policy makers on how to best manage offenders in the community, reduce recidivism, contain costs and maintain public safety simultaneously. Developed in 1990, the theory of RNR incorporates criminal conduct psychology into an understanding of reducing recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). From this concept, four principles are derived on which the evaluation and treatment of offenders are guided towards rehabilitative objectives and also reduce the risk of recidivistic crime to the society. Two of the principles are the risk principle and the need principle (MacKenzie, 2006). This paper will compare and contrast the risk principle and need principle and determine which offenders between the high risk and low risk the probation officers should spend most of their time with. It will further elaborate on what the need principle says about high risk and low risk offenders and show whether there are risk and need tools that may assist probation officers in determining risk levels of offenders. Reviewing literature on offender rehabilitation has shown that program services provided to offenders has reduced recidivism by a mean of 10% in the past two decades (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). Recidivism is understood to be the repeating of undesirable behaviour by offenders even after experiencing its negative consequences. In this sense, it is also in reference to the percentage of rearrested former prisoners for indulging in similar offenses. As stated by the risk principle, programming must be matched to the offenders’ risk level. This implies that high risk or moderate risk individuals need to be prioritized in order to receive more intensive and structured control and treatment programs to optimize outcomes. Similarly, low risk offenders must be prioritized when their criminogenic needs are high. Criminogenic needs are dynamic factors that produce crime and are correlated strongly with risk (MacKenzie, 2006). They are referred to as dynamic because they can be changed and they include an individual’s employment status, use of substances, company kept, antisocial attitudes, poor family relations and problem solving skills. Studies have shown that the type of offender put in a correctional program is directly related to the effectiveness of the program (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). Of equal importance is what the program targets after an assessment of the offender. On the other hand, the need principle offers guidance to programs on what needs should be targeted in the offenders with an objective of reducing the tendency of criminal behaviour. Therefore, the need principle identifies the needs that correctional interventions should target in a bid to reduce recidivism (Hollin, Mcmurran & McGuire, 2005). Here, dynamic criminogenic needs are evaluated, and it is important for the correctional personnel to consider that each individual’s needs are unique. Further, the readiness of the offenders to participate in the intervention is also of critical significance. When the correctional intervention targets the appropriate criminogenic needs, recidivism may be reduced considerably. Further, by targeting a higher density of the criminogenic needs, for example, about five more than non-criminogenic ones, a higher percentage in the reduction of recidivism will be achieved. Conversely, interventions targeting only up to three more criminogenic needs non-criminogenic ones are likely to occasion an increase in recidivism (Hollin, Mcmurran & McGuire, 2005). From this examination, it is apparent that need and risk principles are both crucial interventions in correctional treatment. Among the high risk offenders, better results are achieved with intensive treatment programs. The two principles differ mainly because the risk principle focuses on providing more intervention to higher-risk cases and low or no service to lower-risk cases while the need principle aims to achieve more recidivism reduction by aiming at criminogenic needs (MacKenzie, 2006). The risk principle, therefore, demonstrates that offenders can be distinguished according to their risk levels. It shows that the higher the risk level, the more chances of reoffending. The need principal has also demonstrated that among offenders whose criminogenic needs are high, there is a higher likelihood of failing on conditional release. Evaluation of their needs is a reliable indicator of their conduct on parole. The two principles also serve a complementary function because a combined assessment offenders’ need levels and associated risk of criminal history improves the predictive accuracy of the risk assessment (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002). Probation officers should spend most of their time with high risk offenders rather than low risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). When an wrongdoer is placed on probation, it is an alternative in which they are not incarcerated but serve their full sentences in the community. In the case of parole, the offenders are allowed to serve a certain amount of their remaining time in the community rather than continued incarceration. For the high risk offenders, a wide array of assessment methods shows they are highly likely to commit a serious crime within a two-year period after the assessment. By definition, they are the most worrisome offenders probation officers are faced with, in contrast to low risk offenders. Among the parolees and probationers, the low risk offenders have the highest likelihood of success. Low risk offenders on parole and probation are often required to meet with their probation officers. For example, there were more than 13,000 low risk parolees and probationers in Philadelphia alone in 2012 (Travis, 2014). Further, each probation officer was managing between 350 and 400 cases at any one time, which forced them (offenders) to wait for several hours for an appointment that typically lasted less than fifteen minutes. This takes up much of the time needed for parolees and probationers who require extra help, increasing their likelihood to reoffend. Studies have also revealed that interventions tend to be more successful when used on high risk offenders than low risk offenders (Hollin, Mcmurran & McGuire, 2005). This is in agreement with what the need principle says about high risk and low risk offenders. Among the high risk offenders, interventions may yield the intended consequences, while, on the other hand, the same interventions may have unintended and undesirable consequences when applied on low risk offenders. The most obvious way to arrive at this conclusion is by analyzing the risk factors giving rise to offending tendencies (MacKenzie, 2006). When the meta-analyses on the risk indicators are reviewed, it can be seen that a background of antisocial behaviour, negative personality, the wrong company and antisocial attitudes are the strongest indicators. Therefore, the growing rate of failure among low risk offenders can be understood to be associated with the correctional intervention method (Hollin, Mcmurran & McGuire, 2005). For example, when low risk offenders are placed in the intense interventions together with the high risk offenders, they are simultaneously being exposed to the company of the high risk offenders. It follows, therefore, that if the wrong company is a risk factor for offending, the low risk offender will probably pick up detrimental dynamic traits from the high risk offenders. In conclusion, there are various risk and need tools available to assist probation officers to determine the risk level of an offender. An example is RNR Simulation Tool that is made up of three portals (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002). One is the Assess an Individual, also referred to as Estimate Recidivism Reduction, and is designed to be used by line staff. This tool emphasizes the use of data obtained from behavioral health and criminal justice screening as well as assessments to establish the most effective controls and program to manage individual recidivism. It entails asking users to respond to 17 questions on the lifestyle factors, needs and risks of individual offenders then the system recommends the most appropriate intervention to reduce recidivism according to the established risk level. References Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Ohio: Anderson Press Hollin, C., Mcmurran, M., & McGuire, J. (2005). Offender rehabilitation and treatment: Effective programmes and policies to reduce re-offending. West Sussex: Wiley. Lowenkamp, C., & Latessa, E. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio's halfway house and community- based correctional facilities. Ohio: University of Cincinnati. MacKenzie, D. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press. Travis, A. (2014). Supervision of high-risk criminals will not be handed to private sector. The Guardian 13 January 2014. Read More