The Practical Significance of a Psychology of Criminal Conduct

1. The Practical Significance of a Psychology of Criminal Conduct James Bonta Public Safety Canada Dutch Probation Service & University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, the Netherlands May 2009

2. Outline of the Presentation 1. The General Policy Debate – getting the right balance of punishment and treatment 2. Theoretical Perspectives of Crime – forensic mental health and a Psychology of Criminal Conduct (GPCSL) 3. Psychology (GPCSL) – making a difference

5. House of wax reviews

6. Excerpt From First Hit “This is by far one of the best movies that I have seen. I saw it with my friends and they liked it too. One thing that we all liked a lot in the movie was how good at actressing Paris Hilton was. She shoud win a Grammie for her role!” Overall rating: 9 / 10

7. Should I Believe This Review? • Reviewer has reviewed other movies and shows • n > 1 (friends agreed with review) • Reviewer is literate (somewhat) • Paris Hilton is talented...

8. Meta-analysis • Comprehensive: Include ALL studies regardless of design & p level • Common metric • Quantification & Objectivity

9. “Do No Harm” – Nice Motto But, some criminal justice policies and practices do cause (“unintended”?) harm – • To the community • To the person

10. Doing Harm to the Community: The “Get Tough” Movement • Utilitarian Model of Crime • If crime pays, then up the costs • Just Deserts • Punishment as a deserved social value; It is the “fair” thing to do • Has this worked? • U.S. has ¼ of world prison population (7 million under correctional supervision)

11. Harm to the Community: “Get Tough” and Recidivism Smith et al., 2002

12. Doing Harm to the Person • Denial of liberty • Barriers to pursue social “goods” • Sanctions for punishment and not as punishment • Personal degradation

17. Why Do We Continue to do Harm? • Politics • Disrespect for Evidence • Dumb theories

18. Disrespect for Evidence • Remember: Inhibits — does not teach new behavior • Vary punishers (few universal punishers) • Immediate • Appropriate intensity • Type of person: * nonimpulsive, future-oriented * average to above-average IQ * minimal punishment history * cautious, avoids/minimizes excitement

19. Dumb Theories: Correctional Quackery • “treatment interventions that are based neither on existing knowledge of the causes of crime or programs that have shown to change offender behavior” • Dismissive of evidence

20. Dumb Theories Lead to Dumb Interventions: Correctional Quackery • Drama/Art/Horticultural Therapies • Acupuncture • TM • Healing Breath Training • Pet Therapy • Vision Training • Much Music Therapy…

22. Doing Good: Not So Dumb Theories • Forensic Mental Health • A Psychology of Criminal Conduct: A General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning Perspective

23. Forensic Mental Health • The Cause of Crime • Cause is within the person and pathological • Example theories: Psychiatric disorders (e.g., paranoid schizophrenic), Psychopathy, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Neurotic-Anxious

24. Implications for Assessment and Treatment Assessment Treatment Anxiety  Relaxation, medication Intellectual/  Educational/Remedial Cognitive Deficits Self-esteem  Counseling Depression Alienation Schizophrenia  Hospitalization, Manic-depression medication Hallucinations Delusions

25. Risk Assessment in Corrections

26. Clinical Predictors Study 2 ns ns ns ns Clinical Measure Study 1 Self-esteem ns Anxiety ns Locus of Control ns Depression -.21*

27. Psychological Distress and Intellectual Dysfunction Gendreau et al., 1996

28. Mental Disorder as a Predictor of Recidivism General Violent NGRI -.06 * -.02 (1830) (1462) MDO -.19 ** -.10 ** (3009) (2866) NGRI = Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity MDO = Mentally Disordered Offender (Bonta et al. 1998)

29. Principles of Effective Rehabilitation Risk Principle • Treat the higher risk Need Principle • Address criminogenic needs Responsivity Principle • use cognitive-behavioural interventions

30. Meta-analysis of the Treatment of MDO • Comprehensiveness of Intervention • 78% targeted mental illness only • 4% targeted criminogenic needs; 13% targeted both • Appropriate Correctional Intervention • 33% not appropriate • 53% somewhat appropriate • 5% appropriate (Morgan, Flora, Kroner, et al., 2007)

31. Forensic Mental Health: Summary Indicators of psychological distress and psychopathology are weak predictors of criminal behavior Treatment targets being used today for MDOs are unlikely to result in significant reductions in recidivism

32. General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL) • Basic Ideas • Behaviour is learned following established learning principles • Learning is a function of the immediate situation • The situation interacts with person factors

33. General Personality Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL)

35. GPCSL and Risk Assessment

36. GPSCL and Risk Assessment • Sample at a minimum the Big Four and ideally the Central Eight • Seven of the Central Eight are dynamic risk factors (criminogenic needs) Are we doing this?

37. Four Generations of Risk Assessment 1st Generation (Clinical Judgment) 2nd Generation: Static 3rd Generation: Integrated Risk & Need 4th Generation

38. 1st Generation: I Can Tell

39. Second Generation: Static Risk .

40. Third Generation: Dynamic Risk General Violent 3rd .36 .25

41. Dynamic Risk: Advantages • Monitoring Offenders • Selecting Intervention Targets • Evaluating Treatment

42. Dynamic Predictive Validity Re-assessment Risk Study N Intake Risk Low High Andrews & Robinson 57 Low 4.2 28.6 (1984) High 0.0 57.1 Motiuk et al. (1990) 55 Low 0.0 33.3 High 0.0 54.5 Raynor et al. (2000) 157 Low 26.2 54.8 England & Wales High 55.3 78.4 Raynor (2007) 203 Low 29.0 59.0 Jersey High 54.0 76.0 Arnold (2007) 1064 Low 13.0 26.0 High 32.0 54.0

43. Predictive Validity Type of Recidivism Risk ScaleGeneralViolent 1st .10 .13 2nd .29 .31 3rd .36 .25 4th .41 .29 ________________________________ ___ (From Andrews, Bonta & Wormith, 2006)

44. The Four Generations of Risk Assessment • First Generation • subjective; poor inter-rater reliability • predictive accuracy: poor • Second Generation • objective, empirically linked criteria • good inter-rater reliability • mostly static and criminal history variables • Third Generation • all advantages of second generation • criminogenic needs • Fourth Generation • all advantages of third generation • integration of assessment with case management in accordance with the RNR principles (Andrews & Bonta, 2006)

45. What Does GPCSL Mean for Treatment? • GPCSL is the theoretical basis to the Risk- • Need-Responsivity Principles of Effective • Intervention

46. GPCSL and the Risk Principle Assess risk and match treatment services to risk level

47. GPCSL and the Need Principle Assess and target criminogenic needs

48. GPCSL and the Responsivity Principle Match treatment style to offender’s learning style • Behaviour is learned following established learning principles (General Responsivity: Cognitive-Behavioural) • The situation interacts with person factors (Specific Responsivity)

49. Adherence to Principles by Setting Decrease • Community • Residence Recidivism Increase

50. Do the same principles apply to sexual offender treatment programs?