critique of andrews and bonta's psychology of criminal conduct

MASSEY UNIVERSITY

Critique of Andrews and Bonta’s Psychology of Criminal Conduct

Paper coordinator: Prof Mei WilliamsAuthor: VM Westerberg

Date: 27 August 2012

175.719 - APPLIED CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY WESTERBERG, V.M.Assignment 1 10143519

2

READING 1

Chapter 1: An Overview of the Psychology of Criminal Conduct: Andrews, D.A. &

Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (pp 3-43)

In the first chapter of their book, Canadian criminal psychology researchers, Don

Andrews and James Bonta (2010), explain their views of the Psychology of Criminal

Conduct (PCC) and state that it needs to be linked with general psychology of human

behaviour, of which it lies at the extreme end. They explain their view in an articulate,

well structured manner. However, they fail to acknowledge one critical aspect: Their

ethical standpoint on crime, punishment and justice being a Western, capitalist, liberal,

Christian-tradition one.

When Andrews and Bonta (2010) address research methods, cross-cultural issues are

neglected, and they dedicate but a couple of lines to culture. Cross-cultural research is

relevant in a globalised world where international criminal activity is commonplace.

Such research is not without difficulties. Redmond (2003) argued that “there are no

universal ethical ‘truths’ or universally ethical ‘ways of conducting’ research that are

applicable to all national/cultural settings” (p. 18).

So, whose concept of justice is Justice? Western Christian’s, and among those, liberals’ or

conservatives’?; Communists’?, Muslims’?, Indigenous people’s? Whose concept of

justice should prevail and why?

For example, liberals believe that humans are good by nature, that there are no set

moral standards to follow and that criminality is the result of inequality (Tetlock &

Mitchell, 1993). Therefore, society is to blame for criminal conduct, for the corruption of

the naturally-good humans. Liberals victimise and justify the poor with regards to crime

and favour rehabilitation, with a focus on offenders more than on victims and society. In

contrast, conservatives believe that humans can make rational choices between good

and evil (with a clear tendency to give in to the latter, as evolutionary and

psychodynamic theorists state), that there actually moral values based on religion,

parental values and teaching, and that people are responsible for their life choices,

including crime. Conservatives believe that individuals, including the poor, have


3

freedom of choice and that individuals, and not society, should be accountable for their

actions through retributive justice (Tetlock & Mitchell, 1993).

In communist societies, where social classes do not exist in theory, retribution is the

norm. According to Amnesty International (2012), communist countries have the

highest rates of capital punishment, followed by Muslim countries. The USA is in fifth

place. The difference in numbers is that statistics from the USA are reliable. Communist

and Muslim societies are collectivist societies (Landy & Conte, 2010), and have a focus

on retribution and reciprocity. Likewise, In New Zealand, Maori justice concepts of

mana and utu state that any offence against one’s mana could expect utu, i.e.: revenge.

The authors’ point of view is clearly liberal monocultural. They claim that feminist,

Marxist and social theory positions are wrong and that they have been proven wrong by

literature reviews (of their choice) and that definitely, society and social class are minor

contributors to criminality, not relevant to account for individual differences in crime.

However, among their Big Four are antisocial associates and attitudes. Where do the

authors think offenders get those? Is the obvious too evident, too near, to be seen?

Antisocial associates and attitudes are gotten from Bronfenbrenner’s microsystem:

family, peers, and neighbours, that is, from one’s social environment (Lerner, Jacobs, &

Wertlieb, 2005).

AUTHORS’ TAKE HOME MESSAGE: The PCC is a valid and reliable tool that explains

criminal behaviour empirically (evidence-based research), theoretically and practically

(application).

CRITICAL TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Evidence-based knowledge comes from hand-

picked knowledge, hardly ever from all sources of available evidence. It disregards the

clinician’s judgement based on the clinical interview and on the assessment process

more than just on results. Reading between the lines and not reading relevant

information should make the critical reader want to search for the missing information,

and ask the question: cui bono?


4

READING 2

Chapter 2: The Empirical Base of PCC and the RNR Model of Assessment and Crime

Prevention Through Human Services: Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2010). The

psychology of criminal conduct (pp 45-78).

In this chapter, the authors introduce their RNR model of evaluation and intervention in

a correctional environment and their model of treatment is based on general

personality and socio-cognitive learning. They justify its validity and reliability based on

meta-analyses comparing their approach with official punishment.

Andrews and Bonta (2010) make a good job at showing how their approach is the only

proven tool shown to decrease recidivism amongst high risk offenders. Keeping prison

sentences to the full extent, continued re-imprisonment, and serving consecutive

sentences basically favours recidivism. According to the authors, warehousing criminals

involves unacceptably heavy costs and no changes in criminal activity. They fail to

consider the cost in terms of money and personal pain and loss of criminal activity on

society, the incalculable suffering caused by repeat offenders given minimal sentences

who upon release will most likely go back to their drug dealing, armed robberies,

assaults, or murder against innocent people (Tetlock & Mitchell, 1993).

The authors also fail to take into account the additional costs in terms of police and

judicial costs around capturing, defending, convicting, and “lodging” dangerous

recidivist criminals coming in and out of the justice system (Tetlock & Mitchell, 1993).

What about the heavy insurance and security costs incurred to protect against property

loss and personal injury due to ongoing criminal activities? What about the expectations

of victims and their families of the justice system which is supposed to offer them

protection against human predators? What about providing victims and families a sense

of closure?

Andrews and Bonta’s RNR model clearly has strengths and weaknesses (Ward, Yates, &

Willis, 2012). Claiming that their RNR is the premier rehabilitation theory for high-risk

criminals is one strength. RNR has been used in multiple research studies on risk

assessment and treatment and shown clinical utility, ensuring its validity and reliability.

Another strength is the wide empirical scope of RNR through a strong theoretical base:


5

psychodynamic theory, Pavlov’s classical and Skinner’s operant conditioning theories,

Bandura’s modelling and self-efficacy theory, Berkowitz social learning theory, class-

based sociological theories, and differential association are among the most relevant

ones (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). A third strength stems from the second one, in that the

successful application and use of multiple theories shows that crime is a multifactorial

phenomenon (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Finally, growing research evidence supports

the uses in real life practice of the RNR model in that reduced recidivism rates directly

result from focusing on treating high vs. low risk criminals, on criminogenic needs, and

on ensuring that therapy is adequate for the assessed characteristics of the specific

offender (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).

One of the most relevant weaknesses has to do with the fact that risk reduction is

unlikely to motivate criminals not to reoffend (Ward, Yates, & Willis, 2012). Additional

weaknesses include that an exclusive focus on offenders’ needs, interests, and strengths

to promote change has been proven ineffective (Ward, Yates, & Willis, 2012), shallow

explanations, and assuming that people (criminal or not) are a uniform sample that

predictably responds to a set of therapies, the omission of non-criminogenic needs to

achieve rehabilitation, and the “one-size-fits-all” approach.

AUTHORS’ TAKE HOME MESSAGE: The RNR model of crime evaluation and prevention

is a valuable tool that has been the victim of “knowledge destructive techniques”. It

determines strong and weak criminal risk factors: Antisocial traits are strong and low

socio-economic class is weak.

CRITICAL TAKE HOME MESSAGE: The authors somehow fail to identify how much

remains a mystery to risk evaluation and treatment. In this line, they can be accused of

further “knowledge omission techniques” for insisting on convincing the reader that

their theory is not just good, which it is, but that it is virtually infallible.


6

READING 3

Chapter 3: Understanding Through Theory: Psychopathological, Psychodynamic,

Social Location And Differential Association Perspectives: Andrews, D.A. & Bonta,

J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (pp 79-130)

This chapter shows the solid multi-theory influences underpinning Andrews and

Bonta’s (2010) Psychology of Criminal Conduct (PCC). The authors rely mostly on

Freud’s psychodynamic theory concepts of the frustration-aggression mechanism.

Criminal behaviour theories are far from a recent advent and have been around for

hundreds of years (Parantap, 2012). Aristotle pioneered them stating that poverty leads

to revolution and crime. Francis Bacon claimed that the situation may determine

behaviour (“opportunity makes a thief”). A century later, Voltaire and Rousseau stated

that criminality was the result of personal self-satisfying behaviour in the context of an

lenient criminal system in which the benefits of wrong-doing outweigh the

consequences of abiding by the law (Parantap, 2012). The US Bill of Rights protection is

based on classical theory and it became the model for the protection of individuals from

disproportionate punishment (Bill of Rights, 2012).

Classical theory was followed by modern crime theories. A renowned one is the

Positivist School of Criminology that focuses on the scientific method and empirical data

to understand criminal behaviour. Further explanations are the psychological, the

biological, and the sociological ones, or combinations of them (Andrews & Bonta, 2010;

Parantap, 2012). Psychological theories are those supporting Andrews and Bonta’s

theory of PCC.

Biological explanations are supported by positivist theory and by multiple long-term

studies and by meta-analyses with twins and adoptees like those carried out by LiLalla

and Gorresman since the 1950’s (Parantap, 2012) that showed a 51% concordance

among identical twins and a 22% rate among fraternal twins. Having a biological parent

with a history of criminal behaviour make individuals 4 times more likely to follow the

same pathway. In adoptees the possibilities are just half as much. Inheritance explains


7

the morphologic characteristics of criminals described by Lombroso, Hoorten, Sheldon,

and Olweus (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Parantap, 2012).

Social theories like that of Structural Explanation, Differential Opportunity, Nettler’s

Rational Crime, Miller’s Focal Concerns put the blame of criminal behaviour not on the

individual but on the social environment (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Parantap, 2012).

Finally, the combined model of criminal behaviour, like Andrews and Bonta’s PCC

(2010) aims to integrate the above mentioned psychological, biological, and sociological

theories. According to this theory, the study of criminal behaviour should consider

distal antecedents (bio-psycho-social and environmental factors), early indicators of

antisocial behaviour, maintenance variables and early intervention effects (Parantap,

2012).

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Because of the complexity of human nature, there is no “one-

size-fits-all” theory of criminal behaviour. The theory underlying the PCC has some

flaws, but overall, it is a sensible model.


8

READING 4

Chapter 4: A General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning Approach: The

Personal, Interpersonal, And Community-Reinforcement (PIC-R) Perspective:

Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (pp 131-

155)

The General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL) perspective developed

by Andrews and Bonta (2010) is the fusion of 4 theories: the psychodynamic, the social

bonding, the differential association and the strain perspective ones.

The 13 principles of the authors’ Personal, Interpersonal, and Community-

Reinforcement perspective (PIC-R) are described in detail in this chapter. Those

principles can be summarised in one main concept: All behaviour is under antecedent

and consequences control and it is mediated by rewards-cost contingencies. Control can

be modified by CBT through recognition, avoidance and coping. The rewards-cost

aspect is the basis of by Skinner’s operant conditioning theory (Lerner, Jacobs, &

Wertlieb, 2005). However, in PIC-R it is Albert Bandura’s theories that have the greatest

relevance. A behaviourist considered the “father or cognitive theory”, Bandura’s

concepts of reciprocal determinism (bidirectional influences between individual and the

environment), modelling (observational learning), and moral disengagement (diversion

of self-punishment through mechanisms of self-reward). Additionally, Bandura

developed the Self-Control (or self-regulation) therapy and the Modelling therapy

(Lerner, Jacobs, & Wertlieb, 2005); Andrews & Bonta, 2010).

Andrews and Bonta (2010) classify criminal risk factors in 3 groups: high (antisocial

personality pattern), moderate (parenting style, family, achievements) and low risk

(low socio-economic origin and distress). The authors, here and throughout their book,

recommend intensive application of CBT on the highest risk offenders for anti-

recidivism purposes and because research has shown that in lower risk criminals it is

difficult to assess whether lower recidivism is the result of a natural tendency in this

group or because of CBT.


9

Basically, and in keeping with the most influential theory on the PCC, Freud’s

psychodynamic theory, normal and criminal human behaviour are part of a continuum

in which criminal behaviour is at the deviant end (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Together with antisocial attributes, weak self-control

differentiates criminals from the non-criminal population. CBT has been shown to

improve self-control in both settings, leading to reduced recidivism among the former.


10

READING 5

Chapter 5: Biological, Personal, and Social Origins of the Major Risk/Need Factors

and Personal Strengths: Andrews, D.A & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of

criminal conduct (pp 161-190)

Biological factors are behind some criminal behaviour. With this statement, Andrews

and Bonta (2010, p. 188) begin their final comments section on Chapter 5. They also

state the fact that the environment determines how biology is expressed. But what

biology does not provide, the environment cannot modify. If an individual is born with a

defective or inexistent uncinate fasciculus, a bundle of fibres between the amygdala and

the orbitofrontal cortex linked to criminal behaviour (Craig et al., 2009), the

environment cannot do anything to change that.

Biologically determined aspects like age, sex and race influence human conduct, and this

chapter provides evidence of heredity in criminal conduct from family, twin, and

adoption studies. The authors also indicate how evolutionary theorists like Darwin,

Lorenz, and Bowlby claim that criminal behaviour has an adaptive function that

developmental biologists downplay giving a main role to the environment. A

neuropsychological component in criminal conduct is mentioned in passing and

considered rare and one of a kind. However, evidence from meta-analyses of inmates

with a history of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) at birth or childhood show that TBI may

play a role in deviant conduct (Lerner, Jacobs, & Wertlieb, 2005). The question is if in

biologically predisposed individuals or not.

The biological perspective means that humans are violent by nature and therefore

violent acts are natural. According to Common Law, a person’s guilt or lack thereof

depends not only on the actual commission of a crime (actus reus) but on whether or

not it was intentional (mens rea) (Williams, 2006). The biological perspective means

that there is no mens rea. If genetic or biological factors make the offender prone to

violence, this diminishes or eliminates intentionality and thus results in a more lenient

sentence. Moreover, because common law establishes that offenders should be

punished proportionately to their guilt (Williams, 2006), criminal conduct should be

treated rather than punished. Andrews and Bonta (2010) fail to consider the legal


11

implications of biological determinants of criminal conduct even though they clearly

support their non-retributive perspectives.

The psychologists involved in a state-of-the-art programme with long-term prisoners at

Long Larton Prison in the UK claim that there is one key step in the rehabilitation of a

violent offender: Acceptance that he alone, and nothing (biology, addictions,

environment) and nobody else (associates), was responsible the actions that led to his

imprisonment. Without acknowledging responsibility there is no hope of rehabilitation

(Hodgson, 2000).

Rehabilitationists are said to favour the rights of offenders over those of the victims and

the community. To be indeed effective, criminal law needs to be underpinned by a

generally-accepted moral code and by a generally-accepted view that the law is fair and

that it reflects the basic moral consensus (Hodgson, 2000); compliance is ensured by

observation of moral codes of conduct and of the law, and by co-operation with law

enforcement agencies. High-risk offenders disregard these social obligations and

disrespect the law, possibly in part because of a brain abnormality, but public safety

demands that the law be applied for the benefit of the community (Hodgson, 2000).

AUTHORS’ TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Because humans are complex organisms who do

not operate in a vacuum, psychologists should draw from as many sources of

information as possible to make their assessments, predictions and interventions.

CRITICAL TAKE HOME MESSAGE: The authors fail to identify the moral code under

which they operate and claim the society should too.


12

READING 6

Chapter 6: Antisocial Personality Pattern: Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2010). The


Andrews and Bonta (2010) not only disagree with the concept of Antisocial Personality

Disorder (APD), they even question their reliability. The reason is that it makes it a

psychopathological condition, a disease, known to be untreatable, or put differently,

APD is incurable because research has shown there is a clear biological component in it.

They prefer to call APD “antisocial personality pattern” because a “pattern” is amenable

to treatment according to their general personality and cognitive social psychological

theory, applying Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT).

The authors state that publicly funded cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) has been

scarce in Canada both for mental health and for correctional services. This is shocking

data given the hegemony of CBT in the past 10 years in developed countries. It is

possible that the Canadian government was ahead of the Swedish government

regarding leaving the door open to research and application of therapies other than

CBT.

Robert Hare, the creator of the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) described psychopaths as

dangerous, manipulative, and eminently self-satisfying predators. These individuals do

not have a conscience or empathy, are unable to feel guilt, coldly take what they want to

have their way, and have no respect or fear to the law (Sadock & Sadock, 2007). This

definition implies that psychopaths should be better referred to as sociopaths, that the

condition is biologically determined, and that nothing can change it.

It is difficult to believe that these highest risk criminals can benefit from CBT, that is,

being made to understand that their thoughts and actions are not only not normal but

damaging to others, and that re-enacting situations during court-mandated therapy

while in prison will have any impact in real life upon release. These predators lack

empathy and do what they want because they want to. They do not fear punishment

and have a low responsivity to pain (Sadock & Sadock, 2007).


13

Andrews and Bonta (2010) keep providing chosen research articles on the “evidence-

based” benefits of CBT. They agree with the mainstream trend not to want to assess

children for early evidence of psychopathy. If CBT is ever going to be proven useful that

would be in a developing individual. The authors tend to mix results of juvenile and

adult offenders and types of offences in recidivism statistics, and fail to state that given

that in the past 10 years CBT has been the sole therapy of choice in correctional and

clinical mental health services, results of their literature reviews and of their own

research are likely to be skewed.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Pathologising personality or behaviour can make offenders

unaccountable for their actions, and subject to only medical treatment instead of

alternative psychological approaches. The risk-benefit of screening and treating

children with sociopathic traits, in the authors’ view, favours risks.


14

READING 7

Chapter 7: The Role of Antisocial Associates and Attitudes in Criminal Conduct:


245)

Walter Miller’s Theory of Focal Concerns focuses on how individuals whose family and

social environments are dysfunctional, violent or lacking some of Maslow’s basic needs

(Landy & Conte, 2010) are more likely to join a gang. The gang subculture provides

vulnerable individuals with a meaning to life, a structure, something to do, a position,

and a sense of belonging (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Webb, 1990). The greater the

difference between the values of society and those of the gang, the greater the chance

for criminal behaviour development (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).

Criminal behaviour is directed towards living up to the gang’s subculture values, and so

adolescents strive to show they are tough, and do break-ins to demonstrate cunning,

bravery and love for excitement (Webb, 1990).

Belonging to a gang provides not only antisocial associates from whom to learn, but a

wide range of perks like identity, attention, status, power, protection, feeling of

belonging, emotional and financial support and excitement are just a few of them. On

the other hand, the gang subculture requires the negation of legitimacy of law

enforcement and the legal system (Arrigo & Shipley, 2005).

The problem of gang criminality is likely not be tackled exclusively by the

implementation of the corresponding punitive actions. Actually, deterrence encourages

gansters’ reactionary antisocial or criminal activities while increasing gang

cohesiveness (Webb, 1990). Policies in this respect need to entail comprehensive

programmes carried out by specially trained criminal psychologists in correctional and

community centres working together with law enforcement agencies in an effort to

manage the underlying conflicts not just their outcomes.


15

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Andrew and Bonta (2010) suggest the STICS programme for

the management (vs. the elimination) of gangs in community settings. Missing from this

chapter are a definition of “gang” and a measurement of dangerousness for gangs.


16

READING 8

Chapter 8: The Person in Social Context: Family, School, Work, Leisure /

Recreation, Marital Attachments, and Neighbourhood: Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J.

(2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (pp 248-273)

This chapter offers further review of the causal process in cognitive social learning

terms and how antisocial cognitions emerge from what Urie Bronfenbrenner called

“mycrosystem”: family, school, work, neighbours (Lerner, Jacobs, & Wertlieb, 2005). To

better understand this chapter, the authors recommend reading about attachment

theories, specifically the one developed by John Bowlby, called Evolutionary Theory of

Attachment [ETA] (Lerner, Jacobs, & Wertlieb, 2005).

Clearly, Bowlby was influenced by Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and he stated

that children and their main caregivers (the mothers) are biologically predetermined to

stay together for survival purposes (Lerner, Jacobs, & Wertlieb, 2005). Bowlby also

drew from Konrad Lorenz’s Ethological (animal behaviour) that claims that attachment

is inborn, instinctive, and that fulfils survival purposes (Lerner, Jacobs, & Wertlieb,

2005). Additionally, Bowlby also catered from Freud’s psychodynamic theory and

claimed that psychiatric and behavioural problems stemmed from early childhood

problems (Lerner, Jacobs, & Wertlieb, 2005).

According to the Evolutionary Theories of Attachment (ETA) it is natural to need other

people throughout the lifespan, not pathological as Clinical Psychologists claim through

the creation of a Dependent Personality Disorder to account for the need to find a

secure, long-lasting attachment. Children would initially form only one attachment

(with the mother) and this relationship with the main caregiver will act as a prototype

for all future social relationships (Lerner, Jacobs, & Wertlieb, 2005).

Parenting style theories are also relevant in this chapter. Diana Baumrind’s theory

suggests that 3 of the 4 styles may be involved in future bad social outcomes. Those

styles are authoritarian, permissive and uninvolved (Lerner, Jacobs, & Wertlieb, 2005).

Authoritarian styles produce obedient, submissive, unhappy children with few social

skills; permissive parenting produces impulsive and unhappy children likely to perform

poorly academically and to have problems with the law. Uninvolved parenting styles


17

give the worst outcomes in all life domains; children are impulsive, have low self-

esteem and are less competent socially, academically and emotionally (Maccoby, 1992).

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: How the above mentioned theories interact and influence the

development and outcomes of children explains why family intervention programmes

are effective and long-lasting. For the authors, CBT remains crucial for the reduction of

reoffending regardless of etiology.


18

READING 10

Chapter 10: Prediction of criminal behaviour and classification of offenders:


392).

This is the first chapter on application of PCC, namely the prediction and assessment of

risk. Risk assessment is the prediction about an individual’s likelihood for reoffending

(Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Criminal psychologists are said to have around a 40%

accuracy in their evaluations (Arrigo & Shipley, 2005). Monahan, an authority in risk

prediction, considered MacArthur’s risk assessment studies, and concluded that being a

substance-abusing male, with a history of antisocial behaviour, who committed the first

offence at an early age, and with a high score in Hare’s PCL:SV, all indicate high risk

(Andrews & Bonta, 2010). These findings are in keeping with Andrews and Bonta’s

views (2010).

Andrews and Bonta (2010) just like Arrigo and Shipley (2005) agree that fourth-

generation risk assessment tools are the method of choice as they are integrated with

the case management of offenders.

Ward, Yates, and Willis (2012) showed that Andrews and Bonta’s (2010) LS/CMI,

LS/RNR and LS-R are far from overwhelmingly gender-neutral as the latter authors

claim. Ward et al. (2012) acknowledge the virtues of the model developed by the

Andrews and Bonta (2010), but criticise it for being theoretical and not practical, and

too policy focused. One key problem resides in the original development of the RNR for

which Ward et al. (2012) propose a three-level structure remedy of principles,

assumptions and implications, easier to apply by therapists.

Intelligently, Ward et al. (2012) conclude their article suggesting that the RNR model

would benefit from a merger with their own Good Lives Model [GLM] theory, so that

therapists could use both approaches or use each of them for different phases of the

rehabilitative process.


19

AUTHORS’ TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Criminal behaviour is more accurately predicted

and assessed using the PCC theory, which is valid, reliable, objective, gender-neutral,

and practical.

CRITICAL TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: Andrews and Bonta’s fourth-generation assessment

methods, like the LS/CMI, are valuable tools, but are they really the only valid, reliable

and practical ones? Why is clinician’s expert opinion systematically regarded as non-

scientific in favour of statistics and randomized controlled experiments?


20

READING 11

Chapter 11: Prevention and rehabilitation. Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2010). The


The focus of this chapter is “what works” and “what does not work” in the prevention

and rehabilitation of criminal conduct. The authors complain of decades of ignorance of

evidence-based practice because of political and legislative issues. The tables have

turned, and for two decades now, CBT has reigned in terms of the rehabilitation of high

risk criminals, with significant recidivism reduction, so the authors claim. Andrews and

Bonta (2010) say that therapy programmes’ effectiveness can only be attributed to the

RNR principles and not to factors outside it.

Indeed, today CBT efficacy can apparently not be questioned, just like nobody dares

question anthropogenic climate change (a tautological association of terms). Even the

New Zealand Department of Corrections (2012) apply Andrews and Bonta’s principles

and theories for an improved offender rehabilitation, despite claims that it lacks validity

for females (Ward, Yates, & Willis, 2012).

For over a decade now, the principles of evidence-based practice have been adopted by

healthcare and correctional services in most Western countries, including Sweden, the

UK, the USA, and NZ. CBT is the method topping the list. Hardly any funding was

provided for research, training or treatment in other methods (International Center for

Clinical Excellence [ICCE], 2012). Despite accumulating evidence that most evidence-

based methods had very similar efficacy, CBT became the treatment of choice, the only

choice in practice.

The latest issue of Socionomen, the official journal for Swedish social workers, fell like a

bucket of cold water on the international community when they reported the results of

the government’s two billion Swedish crown investment in CBT (ICCE, 2012). The

widespread adoption of the method had had no relevant positive effect among users of

mental health services, with a considerable number of patients either dropping out or,

worrisomely, becoming disabled after CBT, costing the government an additional 350

billion Swedish crowns. The result: Socialstyrelsen, the Swedish social security agency,

has officially decided to end the CBT monopoly. “To be helped, people must have a


21

choice” (ICCE, 2012). If CBT is not better than other evidence-based techniques in the

general population who often self-refer for treatment, it should not be expected to fare

better among the correctional population with court-imposed treatment.

As mentioned in the review of chapter 2, Andrews and Bonta (2010) not only fail to

offer alternatives to CBT, they also fail to offer any positive evidence of research

counterbalancing their rehabilitative success perspective. The impressive amount of

meta-analyses conclusively showing that CBT significantly reduces recidivism could be

an effect size affected by multiple variables like hegemony in correctional services, like

whether recidivism is defined as rearrest or reconviction or like the number of CBT

sessions received.

Perspectives on retributive justice are important, in terms of victim satisfaction and

closure, in terms of cultural awareness, and in terms of cost-effectiveness. In this regard,

it should be noted that the average maintenance cost to states per inmate per year is

$21,900 USD [Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008]. To this day, there are about 2 million

inmates in US prisons. Of them, violent offenders are 49 percent of the prison

population.

AUTHORS’ TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: Prevention and rehabilitation issues are strongly

influenced by political factors. “What works” is CBT. “What does not work” is everything

else.

CRITICAL TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: Is court-mandated in-prison rehabilitation with

CBT so effective in the outside world to warrant hegemony in service provision?


22

READING 12

Chapter 1: Crime, Criminology and Psychology: Blackburn, R. (1993). The

psychology of criminal conduct: Theory, research and practice (pp 1-34)

In the first chapter of his book, Ronald Blackburn, professor of Criminal Psychology at

the University of Liverpool, makes a comprehensive introduction of legal concepts in an

easy-to-read style. This makes sense as the definition of crime is a legal one.

Unlike Andrews and Bonta (2010), Blackburn (1993) has an equitable approach to the

different theories of criminal conduct and he mentions opposing views, approaches and

theories without sounding like he wants to sell the reader something. Most refreshing.

Blackburn (1993) gives an enlightening historical perspective of law, its reason for

existence and how there is no uniformity in what defines it and how it is applied. He

also clarifies an important point, that the difference between a criminal and a civil

wrong is not the nature of the act but its legal consequences.

Interestingly, under Common Law, the guilt or innocence of a defendant relies both on

the actus reus (the wrong done) and the mens rea (intentionality). Blackburn (1993)

clarifies that an act can be one of commission, omission or possession. Likewise, there

are different degrees of mens rea which vary depending on the conduct, the

circumstances, and the results. Finally, each offence has several possible defences

ranging from immaturity (children) to necessity (poverty). The latter is commonly

brandished by conflict (Marxist) theorists, who blame the working middle class for the

oppression of the lower socio-economic class, which leads them to commit criminal acts

(Blackburn, 1993) and to be overrepresented in correctional facilities.

Punishment for criminal behaviour is an issue of permanent debate between liberals

and conservatives, and cultural identities (Blackburn, 1993). There are 5 modalities that

differ on application rates depending on jurisdictions: retribution (just deserts),

deterrence (discouragement), incapacitation (imprisonment), rehabilitation

(transformation) and restitution (repair).

The amount of knowledge Blackburn manages to convey in so few pages gives the

reader a sense of achievement: From legal definitions to penal and criminal


23

philosophies and to the relationship between psychology and criminology. Knowledge

is presented from different perspectives and is elegantly but simply phrased.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: This is the Criminal Psychology reference book I will

recommend my peers. The depth and breadth of the knowledge in it is impressive,

opposing theories are discussed without animosity but with respect, and the style is

clear, elegant, and reader-friendly.


24

READING 13

Chapter 2: The measurement and distribution of crime. Blackburn, R. (1993). The

psychology of criminal conduct: Theory, research and practice (pp 35-59)

Crime rate information comes mostly from official police statistics, a standard created in

the 1930s by the FBI and called Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) (Blackburn, 1993). The

UCR more or less arbitrarily classified offences in more serious (like murder, rape,

armed robbery) or less serious (theft). The limitations of official statistics are many: The

majority of criminal actions are not reported because they are unidentified, unreported

or unprocessed; police bias in arresting certain criminals depending on their race, age,

sex, physical attributes, clothes, or demeanour that characterises suspects as “the

delinquent type”; and court bias in sentencing certain defendants based on the

“delinquent type” model above or flawed reports from social workers or probation

officers (Blackburn, 1993).

In any case, “the delinquent type” is a young adult male, of an ethnic minority, of low

socio-economic class, minimal education and dysfunctional family backgrounds.

Another way of measuring crime is self-reported criminal behaviour through

anonymous questionnaires most commonly given to teens and preteens. Debate exists

with regard as to whether or not children and adolescents should be screened for and, if

required, offered preventative treatment for detected antisocial traits. “Labelling” is

said to produce deviance amplification if the child identifies himself with the condition

he is suspected to suffer. Blackburn (1993) concludes that research and statistics show

that labelling effects are unlikely to account for the observed continuity and recidivism

in offending. This leads to the next section of this chapter: offender classification.

Offenders can be classified as juvenile one-time offenders, temporary recidivists

(desistors) or persistent recidivists (persisters; majority of convicted offenders), and

latecomers (25% of offenders) (Blackburn, 1993). With regard to taxonomy

(classification) of offenders, the author says it is nearly-impossible at best, a lost war in

practice.


25

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is a saying

that policy-makers and politically-unbiased therapists should keep in mind to tackle

criminality.


26

READING 14

Chapter 5: Individually oriented and integrated theories of crime. Blackburn, R.

(1993). The psychology of criminal conduct: Theory, research and practice (pp

110-135).

This chapter shows how different theories have been used by researchers, psychologists

and sociologists in the explanation of criminality. Freud’s psychodynamic theory,

Kohlberg’s moral development theory, Bowlby and Ainsworth’s attachment theories,

Eysenck’s personality theory, Piaget’s cognitive theory, the learning theories of Pavlov,

Skinner, and Bandura, social learning theories, and integrative theories, are all

evaluated for strengths and weaknesses.

Freud’s psychodynamic theory requires special attention because it has had and still has

a pervasive influence on psychologist and criminologists. In a nutshell, the id is our

instincts; the ego is the final decision-maker, the person as negotiator between the id

and the superego; and the super-ego is society, the person’s conscience. Humans are

hedonistic creatures that seek pleasure and avoid pain. Trying to domesticate our

natural primitive instincts leads to psychological conflicts that may or may not be acted

out in the form of criminality (Blackburn, 1993).

The conclusion reached by Blackburn (1993) is that human beings are subject to

multiple influences and that most theories miss several key aspects of this continuum.

For instance, control theories state that humans are naturally hedonistic, while

subcultural theories deny that assumption and claim that social conformity is the

natural tendency. Kohlberg’s theory is at the other end of the spectrum of Eysenck’s or

Freud’s theories, like Bandura’s from Skinner’s, and integration would imply an

unsustainable incompatibility of principles. An integrative theory is impossible because

there is no coherent “theory of man” (Blackburn, 1993).

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: It is true that there is no theory of man, but research is

stronger when it is based on theory, and sometimes because just one theory cannot

explain the complexity of human nature, authors sensibly recur to the integration of

multiple theories.


27

READING 15

Journal article 1: Armelius B-Å, & Andreassen T.H. (2007). Cognitive-behavioural

treatment for antisocial behaviour in youth in residential treatment. Cochrane

Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD005650. DOI:

10.1002/14651858.CD005650.pub2.

Psychology professors Bengt-Ake Armelius of Umea University (Sweden) and Tore

Andreassen of the Regional University of Bodo (Norway) with a grant from the Nordic

Campbell Centre of Denmark, set out to evaluate the effectiveness on recidivism of CBT

in antisocial teenagers in residential and non-residential environments. Their

secondary goal was to see if there was any difference between interventions that

focused on criminogenic needs versus those that focus on cognitions and behaviour.

Their strategy included the research a vast number of databases like Dissertation

Abstracts International 1960-2005, Sociological Abstracts 1963-2005, ERIC 1966 -2004,

MEDLINE 1966-2005, and CENTRAL 2005. That is, the authors used 5 prestigious

databases to collect data from the past 50 years to see if the results from the

metaanalyses were in keeping or not with their own research.

Armelius and Andreassen (2007) used an experimental design with randomised

controlled trials. Participants were teenagers and young adults (aged 12 to 22) with a

history of antisocial conduct, who were in a restricted-access residential setting. Results

heterogeneity was dealt with using a “random effects model”. Results were reported in

the form of graphs at 6, 12 and 24 months post-therapy. They used power-enhanced

statistics with 95% confidence intervals.

Evaluation of the 12-month follow-up pooled data results spoke in favour of CBT vs.

standard treatment with a reduction in recidivism averaging 10%. However, the effects

of CBT were not measurable after 6 or 24 months or when it was compared with other

common and with standard treatments. The post-release effects of CBT in this

population group sample was about 1 year, disappearing afterwards regardless of the

therapy used, suggesting that re-immersion in the criminogenic environment leads to

recidivism.


28

The authors were aware of the strong support of the small but valuable effect of CBT in

residential treatment. Despite there being several CBT interventions available, the

authors noted that most times only one was applied in the studies evaluated, which

constrast with the standard mixed-therapy practice in Scandinavian countries. The

authors agree with Andrews and Bonta (2010) in that currently, in developed countries,

the most commonly used therapeutic intervention in criminal justice are different

versions of CBT.

Again, Armelius and Andreassen (2007) demonstrated that their 50 year analysis of

evidence-based research shows that interventions that focus exclusively on

criminogenic needs have not been successful and that alternative existing and currently

under research treatments have been proven effective. More, smaller-n, studies are

needed to avoid sample size effects on significance.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Leave the door open for innovation. CBT being privileged in

correctional services led to very large-n studies resulting in predictably consistently

significant results. How come nobody noticed this bias until so recently?


29

READING 16

Journal article 2: Craig, M. C., Catani, M., Deeley, Q., Latham, R., Daly, E., Kanaan,

R., . . . Murphy, D. G. M. (2009). Altered connections on the road to psychopathy.

Molecular Psychiatry, 14(10), 946-953. Retrieved from www.scopus.com. doi:

10.1038/mp.2009.40

Violent, recurrent, criminal behaviour is a function of psychopathy. This is how Craig et

al. (2009) start this revealing article in which they set out to provide further evidence

on the biological basis of psychopathy as described by Robert Hare in his PCL-R.

The biology of psychopathy remains poorly understood and debate exists as to whether

psychopathy is congenital or is it the environment that causes anatomical and or

functional changes in the brain. Previous research showed that abnormal functioning of

the amygdala and/or the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) may be behind psychopathic

behaviour. However, the white matter pathways between those two structures had

never been the object of study. The most direct connection is called the uncinate

fasciculus [UF]. The authors used a state-of-the-art imaging technique, available in very

few hospitals, called diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DT-MRI)

tractography to evaluate the ultrastructure of the UF in psychopaths. Fractional

anisotropy [FA] was used as an indirect measure of tissue integrity.

Their treatment sample consisted of rape-strangulation and murder inmates with PCL-R

scores over 25. FA was significantly smaller in psychopaths than in the control group.

An additional finding was the presence of a correlation between the UF anatomical

structure and psychopathic behaviour. The authors wanted to confirm that those

findings were specific to the amygdala–OFC pathway, so they also studied two control

tracts. DT-MRI findings showed no significant differences between psychopaths and

control subjects.

The researchers were concerned about unidentified confounds having possibly

influenced their findings. For this reason, they performed a post hoc comparative study

with an institutionalised psychiatric control group with a history of drug abuse and

observed that their findings remained significant. The conclusion is that, in view of the

results, abnormalities in the amygdala–OFC white matter tracts support an anatomical


30

basis for psychopathy. Further research, the authors say, is warranted to assess

differences in high-risk children and adolescents to assess developmental evolution of

biological changes in the brain.

The latter statement about future research with children is unfortunate because, what is

the point of screening for a condition that cannot be treated? Craig et al. (2009) are

aware that their study implies neurodegenerative changes for which medicine has no

treatment whatsoever (Braunwald et al., 2008).

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Research like this contributes to provide evidence for the

biological causes of psychopathy at the same time that it brings serious medico-legal

implications for the management of psychopathic offenders.


31

REFERENCES

Amnesty International (2012). Retrieved from http://amnesty.org/en/death-penalty

Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. (5th ed.). Cincinnati,

OH: Anderson Publishing.

Armelius, B-Å., & Andreassen, T.H. (2007). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for antisocial

behavior in youth in residential treatment. Cochrane Database of Systematic

Reviews, 4. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005650.pub2.

Arrigo, B.A., & Shipley, S.L. (2005). Introduction to Forensic Psychology (2nd ed.). London:

Elsevier.

Bill of Rights (2012). Retrieved from

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

Blackburn, R. (1993). The psychology of criminal conduct: Theory, research and practice.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Braunwald, E., Fauci, A.S., Hauser, S.L., Jameson, J.L., Kasper, D.L., & Longo, D.L. (2008).

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (17th ed.). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008). Retrieved from

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/csfcf05.pdf

Department of Corrections (2012). Risk, needs, and responsivity. Retrieved from

http://www.corrections.govt.nz/research/risk-assessment-of-recidivism-of-

violent-sexual-female-offenders/risk-need-and-responsivity.html

Eysenck, H.J. (1964). Crime and Personality. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hodgson, D. (2000). Guilty mind or guilty brain? Criminal responsibility in the age of

neuroscience. The Australian Law Journal, 74, 661-680.


32

International Center for Clinical Excellence [ICCE](2012). Evidence based treatments.

Retrieved from http://www.centerforclinicalexcellence.com/site.php?page=icce-

blog.php

Landy, F.J., & Conte, J.M. (2010). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial

and organizational psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.

Lerner, R.M., Jacobs, F., & Wertlieb, D. (Eds)(2005). Applied Developmental Science: An

Advanced Textbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Maccoby, E.E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: A historical

overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006-1017.

Parantap, K.D. (2012). Crime against elderly: A critical analysis. Retrieved from

http://banaras.academia.edu/parantapdas/Papers/1000735/Crime_Against_Elde

rly_A_Critical_Analysis

Redmond, M. (2003). Cultural and ethical challenges in cross-national research:

Reflections on a European Union study on child and youth migration. International

Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(4). Article 2, 1-21. Retrieved from

http://ww.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/2_4/pdf/redmond.pdf.

Sadock, B.J., & Sadock, V.A. (2007). Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry: Behavioral

sciences / clinical psychiatry. (10th ed.). Philadelphia, IL: Lippincott Williams &

Wilkins.

Tetlock, P.E., & Mitchell, G. (1993). Liberal and conservative approaches to justice:

Conflicting psychological portraits. Retrieved from

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/tetlock/Vita/Philip%20Tetlock/Phil

%20Tetlock/1992-1993/1993%20Liberal%20and%20Conservative

%20Approaches%20 to%20Justice.pdf

Ward, T., Yates, P. M., & Willis, G. M. (2012). The good lives model and the risk need

responsivity model: A critical response to Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith (2011).

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(1), 94-110. Retrieved from www.scopus.com

Webb, M. (1990). Coping with street gangs. New York, NY: Rosen Publishing Group.

Williams, G. (2006). Learning the law (11th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

critique of andrews and bonta's psychology of criminal conduct

Health & Medicine