Abstract
Let me begin this commentary by suggesting that many of the ideas contained in this special issue will be important to the future of correctional psychology. Although each of the authors offer different perspectives on the role that the criminal justice system has to play in the process of desistance from crime, they all identify the importance of a value-oriented analysis to effective offender rehabilitation. Their focus is on promoting desistance at all points of the justice process; from how the legal system can promote therapeutic outcomes through to the provision of post-release support services and the need for community engagement. By approaching the tasks of both rehabilitation and reintegration from a values perspective, they have been able to identify a range of novel and innovative approaches that have the potential to make a real difference. Even more encouragingly, these draw on resources that may already be available to correctional psychologists and yet are often underutilized. In addition, the confidence, and indeed the optimism, expressed in these articles provides a refreshing counter to suggestions that contemporary correctional practice has become pre-occupied with the need to “manage” offenders and for professionals to focus on fulfilling their administrative obligations (see Hardy, 2014).
The focus on the values that underpin practice is rather timely. For some years now, our efforts have been firmly directed toward establishing the strength of evidence that exists to support specific rehabilitative programs. This has been entirely appropriate, and much has been achieved. From a time when psychological interventions with offenders were regarded with mistrust and suspicion, “offending behavior-change” programs have become a cornerstone of contemporary correctional service delivery. We can be rightly proud of the advances that have been made in the development and implementation of evidence-based treatments and the efforts of practitioners and researchers alike to show that our work with offenders can, and often does, lead to change that is both personally and socially significant (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010). And yet, the values that guide our practice, and indeed that of the broader criminal justice system, are not always clearly understood or articulated. Fowers (2006), for example, has suggested that offender rehabilitation can be understood as a “frankly moral dialogue” between the offender and the service provider, both in relation to criminal justice processes (what is “right” and “wrong”) and the actual practice of psychological rehabilitation (what “needs to change”). Our values inform what is considered to be personally meaningful and socially acceptable, and determine the balance between individual self-interest and community safety.
All of us who work in this area will be aware that the values that support offender rehabilitation and reintegration service provision are not always widely endorsed. The delivery of treatment and post-release support programs takes place in a context in which ex-offenders are both stereotyped and stigmatized. I am reminded of a study conducted in the United States by Hirschfield and Piquero (2010) which found that many people endorse the “dangerous” and “dishonest” stereotype of ex-offenders, with only a small minority expressing any willingness to associate with anyone who had been incarcerated. We also know that the public are broadly supportive of long sentences and justice responses which are highly punitive in nature, and have little confidence in the effectiveness of treatment (see Willis, Levenson, & Ward, 2010). Such views not only present significant challenges to those offenders who are seeking to reintegrate back into their communities but are also likely to influence the development of policies that determine the nature and availability of services that are available to them (see Sample & Kadleck, 2008). It is easy to think of offender programs that have been shown to be ineffective but which are still funded, and others that are widely regarded as “successful” which are discontinued. It seems that policy decisions will always be influenced by the values that we hold about offending and offenders.
So what might be, or perhaps should be, the foundations of ethical forensic practice? In this special issue, Birgden sets the scene by discussing the importance of treating offenders fairly, respectfully, and with dignity. She suggests that systemic responses to offending should have a “desistance-related” future focus rather than one that is pre-occupied with past behavior. For Birgden, this involves thinking creatively about how legal rules and procedures can offer opportunities for promoting desistance by balancing justice and therapeutic principles. She goes on to illustrate how this might be achieved in practice through the development of problem-solving and re-entry courts. Arrigo takes this further in his article by suggesting that criminal justice practice and mental health treatment are in need of structural, institutional, and interpersonal reform if they are to actively promote desistance. He argues for the need to develop new ways of working that focus on encouraging citizenship and building human social capital. The danger here is what Bersott and Arrigo in their article refer to as “legal moralism,” whereby legal decision making embodies a punitive public morality that is inconsistent with what we know about effective crime prevention. Bersott and Arrigo present an analysis of case law relevant to the confinement of sex offenders and “Sexually Violent Predators” to support their arguments, although the points they raise extend to other practices, such as waiving juveniles to the adult criminal court system and placing mentally ill offenders in long-term, disciplinary solitary confinement.
Weaver and McNeill consider similar issues, but in a quite different way. They recount the life stories of a friendship group of men in their 40s who first offended together in their youth and early adulthood. Their analysis highlights how the desistance process can occur over the life course, with friendship groups, intimate relationships, families of formation, employment, and religious communities all having important roles to play. The personal narratives of the men they interviewed highlight how social relationships drive the desistance process, and the importance of issues of trust, solidarity, loyalty, and mutual concern (as well as domination, fear, and mistrust) in the choice to offend or desist from crime. Their analysis further highlights how punishment and incapacitation can weaken or damage the very type of social relations that are associated with desistance. Addshead, Ferrito, and Bose then consider the importance of identity to the “recovery” of forensic patients who have committed homicide while mentally ill. They draw attention to the need for self-reflection and acceptance and how this can significantly influence narratives of agency and responsibility over time. Ward, Gannon, and Fortune take these themes from the therapy room to the post-release living circumstances of offenders and identify restorative justice as an approach that actively promotes self-reflection and seeks to heal those important social relationships that allow offenders to be restored to full social standing.
The next two articles offer some creative suggestions for how some of these ideas might be implemented in correctional practice. First, LeBel, Richie, and Maruna identify the considerable opportunities that exist for involving ex-offenders in the delivery of re-entry programs. They show how the motivation that often exists for offenders to move from being “part of the problem” into becoming “part of the solution” can be harnessed in ways that are truly rehabilitative. Fox then considers the opportunities that exist for non-professional community members to play an active role in helping ex-offenders. She describes how positive social relationships can be formalized through the implementation of the Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) model, and the importance of communicating that offenders do, in fact, share the same moral space as ordinary citizens. There are clearly many opportunities to further develop practice in both of these areas.
In the final article, Sellers calls for the implementation of evidence-based approaches to offender treatment. He argues that much is already known about effective practice with juveniles, but that there is also scope for the development, implementation, and evaluation of restorative approaches that embody a relational ethic of care and a virtue-based philosophy. He shows how the ideas of evidence-based practice and those of ethical and value-oriented service delivery are entirely compatible with one another.
What I took from this collection of articles is the need to continue to identify opportunities that exist for us, as correctional psychologists, to move beyond a narrow treatment paradigm to find ways that allow us to provide the psychological and social resources that are necessary for offenders to engage productively in the process of desistance. An overly individualistic and pathological approach to intervention will inevitably constrain what can be achieved, and our rehabilitative efforts will be limited if we focus too much on personal change that is not also recognized and supported by the community, by the law, and by the state. We might, for example, not only think about innovative ways to utilize the formal and informal support networks that are often available to support desistance but also actively seek opportunities to engage with colleagues in the legal, community, and nongovernment sector in working toward common goals. This special issue clearly illustrates the importance of what happens post treatment and post release, and reminds us that although treatment is an important (and for many a necessary) condition for successful rehabilitation, it should not always be considered to be sufficient for enduring change.
There is, of course, also much work to be done outside of the treatment room in improving public policy and judicial decision making and in changing community attitudes toward ex-offenders. However, much can be achieved, even in relation to some of the bigger challenges. I am reminded of the annual Yellow Ribbon initiative that began in Singapore in 2004. This is an annual campaign that aims to promote community support for giving offenders a “second chance” by inspiring community action to support rehabilitation and reintegration. It is launched with a series of nationally televised and printed advertisements that are used as a strategic tool for campaign messaging. Between 2004 and 2009, nearly 2 million yellow ribbons (the symbol of support for ex-offenders) were distributed, more than 300,000 Singaporeans participated in Yellow Ribbon events, and more than 800 new employers registered to provide employment opportunities to ex-offenders (Soh, 2010). While Singapore has earned a reputation for its punitive responses to crime, there are clearly aspects of its efforts to support desistance that others can learn from.
In conclusion, I believe that this collection of articles does help us to reflect on some of the key issues that underpin the practice of correctional psychology. The desistance approach, as articulated in this collection of articles, is a value-based process of responding to crime, rehabilitating criminals, and pursuing reconciliation which can help us to negotiate the tensions that inevitably arise in fulfilling our responsibilities as both mental health professionals and risk managers. The values implicit in treatment programs often focus our attention on issues of responsibility, accountability, and remorse, rather than those that support offenders in their efforts to successfully desist from crime. These articles remind us of the need to maintain a commitment to core values around the promotion of human flourishing and well-being, and the need to always consider just how connected our treatment activities are to the social context in which offending takes place and to which offenders will return. This special issue was compiled to help readers engage with these issues more fully, and I feel confident that you will find these articles stimulating reading.