31: How Does Prison Rehabilitation (Ideally) Work?
Hello and welcome to The Nice-ish Ramblings Podcast with me the Nice-ish Psychologist where today I am putting a bit more of a forensic spin on the episode.For those of you who don’t know, I am a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, and in my actual life outside of this social media world, I sometimes get asked what kind of work I do with those in the forensic population. And how I go about trying to help these individuals turn things around for themselves. Not going to lie, it’s quite a hard question to answer. Mostly because it’s not straightforward. I mean, it’s relatively straightforward in my head, but that’s because I know what I’m doing (allegedly).But the full answer is quite lengthy. So, I thought it could make for a good podcast episode. And so here we are, to think about how prison rehabilitation work ideally. I say ideally because human beings are complex and not straightforward. And even though we can theorise how best to help and work with individuals in the forensic population, it’s not straightforward. We’ll explore some of those reasons as we go along.But before we get into it, as always, if at the end of this episode, you think “Bloody hell that was interesting, I bet all my friends and family would enjoy hearing this,” then please do share this episode with them. And if you could rate or leave a comment, too, that would be very much appreciated. I must admit, I found this an interesting episode to make, so hopefully you find it interesting, too. Also, I would say that if there is anything that piques your interest further and you want to know more about, do get in touch, and ask a question. I might be able to answer it then and there, or I might do a further podcast episode about it.Now that that’s out the way and before we think about what ideal rehabilitation should look like, I thought it might be worth taking a very quick historical trip to learn about how the prison system came about. It’s a summary of three different sources, which I have included in the transcript. So, if you want to know more about something or I don’t cover something in as much detail as you’d like, do look for the relevant hyperlinks in the transcript.So, not going to lie, the history of the prison system is a long and complex one, with roots dating back to ancient civilisations. From the dungeons of medieval Europe to the modern-day prison industrial complex, how society has dealt with crime and punishment has evolved significantly over time. In the 18th century, however, the concept of imprisonment as a form of punishment became increasingly popular. In an interview about the invention of incarceration, Ashley Rubin, a sociologist specialising in the history of prisons in America noted that there is a difference between the existence of jails and the development of prisons.Apparently, prisons have not always been used as a punishment or deterrent for criminal behaviour, but rather as a means of keeping the perpetrator of a crime detained until the actual punishment could be carried out. Before the introduction of prisons, people were punished either through capital punishment (what we know as the death penalty and – according to good old Wikipedia – was formerly called judicial homicide”) or corporal punishment. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the sanctions for criminal behaviour were public events that were designed to shame and deter, including the ducking stool (which is a contraption that had a long arm with a seat on the end of it and was used to dunk those convicted of offences into the water and were later used to identify witches), a pillory (which is effectively a stock in which a person’s head and hands were locked in a frame at the end of a long post), whipping, branding, and stocks (which, unlike a pillory, were used to restrain a person’s feet). Further along in the interview, in response to a question about people being locked up long before the 18th century, Rubin notes: “Yes, but those were jails, not prisons. There were, for example, workhouses in England and the Netherlands in the 16th century that held a big mix of people, including vagrants, debtors and prostitutes. Even orphans in some cases. People who had done minor things or hadn’t necessarily been convicted of a crime, or were being held awaiting trial, or until they paid a fine or for other administrative purposes. Some scholars have argued that those were the first prisons, but in my view, they were more similar to what we would call a jail today. Jail is basically a short-term holding cell, not a place of punishment, and we’ve had that throughout history.” So, initially, prisons tended to be a place where people were held before their trial or while awaiting punishment. It was very rarely used as a punishment in its own right.In 1777, John Howard, the first penal reformer, called for reforms to the prison system, which included paid staff, proper diet, and outside inspection (which only goes to show what the conditions of this confinement would have been like before any of these things were implemented). The existing punishments of capital and corporal punishment were deemed inhumane, and they were not seen as effective in deterring crime. This led to a movement to reform the jail system, which was considered terrible, grotesque, and a hot spot for disease. The desire for a new type of punishment and the need to reform the jails paved the way for prisons as we know them.The first prisons in the world were developed in America. The Massachusetts state prison, which opened in 1785, was the first actual prison, followed by Connecticut in 1790 and Pennsylvania in 1794. In 1791, in the UK, Jeremy Bentham designed the “panopticon” – a prison design that allowed a centrally placed observer to survey all the prisoners, as prison wings radiated out from this central position – which became the model for prison building for the next half-century. If you can’t conceptualise that, I would go have a look at the link, it is quite a fascinating design.So, in summary, historically the prison system was designed to punish criminals and deter others from committing crimes. But over time, it has become clear that incarceration alone is not enough to prevent individuals from re-offending. This has led to a shift in focus towards rehabilitation and reintegration programs within the prison system. However, the effectiveness of the prison system has been a topic of debate for many years (over 200 years, apparently).Then, fast forward to America in 1974, when we meet criminologist Robert Martinson who takes it upon himself to review all evaluations of offender treatment programmes available at the time. In summary, this leads him to conclude that “we haven't the faintest idea about how to rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism [which in case I have not mentioned it before is a fancy word for re-offending]”, which lead to the now famous question of “Does Nothing Work?” in terms of prisoner rehabilitation. Just to add, the question is famous in Forensic circles. You would be forgiven for not knowing what I am talking about. It’s no “to be or not to be”, and you’re not going to be using it in pub quizzes any time soon.However, in response to Martinson’s review and despair, a group of Canadian psychologists proceeded to review all the literature available in the 1980s related to offending to then find out “What Works?” From this review, Donald Andrews and James Bonta developed the Psychology of Criminal Conduct (PCC), which has been around for fucking ages and is now in its 6th edition published in 2016.The PCC highlighted that (surprise, surprise) there were in fact individual factors as to why people offended, which comprised of social, biological, and individual influences. From this, Andrews and Bonta developed the Risk-Need-Responsivity (R-N-R) model, a model of offending that stood in stark contrast to the previous attitudes of correction that relied heavily on punishment (not going to lie, I feel like the prison system is still pretty punitive these days; but anyway, it’s what the literature says...) Seemingly for the first time a model existed that forensic practitioners could use as a framework to understand the causes of criminal behaviour but also aid in reducing re-offending.The first “R” of the R-N-R model is the risk principle, which has two key components. Firstly, it involves predicting the level of risk posed by those who have committed offences, which is not fortune-telling but is based on a combination of statistical likelihood and structured clinical judgment. To achieve this, a thorough assessment of the offender’s static risk factors (which are historical and unchangeable) and dynamic risk factors (which are potentially changeable) is required. Secondly, the risk principle involves matching the individual to an appropriate level of treatment based on their level of risk. In this way, it is proposed that present as a higher-risk should receive higher-intensity interventions, whereas those who present with a lower-risk should receive less intensive or no intervention (there have also been arguments that even those in the low-risk category should receive intervention regardless of being low-risk). But overall, this approach enables correctional institutions to direct resources to those who pose a greater risk and require a greater level of rehabilitation.The “N” part of the R-N-R model is the need principle, which is a key factor in reducing reoffending rates through targeted interventions. To achieve this, it is suggested that interventions should focus on the dynamic risk factors, also known as “criminogenic needs.” The reason for the focus on dynamic risk factors is that, as noted above, static risk factors are historical and can’t be changed. An example of a static risk factor is something like a history of violence or previous offending. These are considered risk factors in the sense that often the predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, and if someone has a long history of violent behaviour then there is a higher chance that person may engage in violent behaviour in the future. And a history of violence or previous offending is not something that can be changed or undone. However, static factors aren’t necessarily an absolute guarantee of future behaviour as static risk factors are influenced by dynamic risk factors (or criminogenic needs), which are changeable and can be focused on as an area of intervention. There are eight identified criminogenic needs that include a history of antisocial behaviour (it’s worth noting here that all offending can be considered antisocial behaviour, but that not all antisocial behaviour is offending – just think about people who talk loudly or on their phone when you go to the cinema; it’s certainly antisocial but no one’s going to prison for being a dick while you watch the latest Marvel instalment). Other dynamic risk factors are an antisocial personality pattern, antisocial cognitions and attitudes, antisocial associates, problematic home or work circumstances, having few positive leisure activities, and substance abuse. So, for example, through interventions that challenge attitudes and beliefs that are supportive of criminal behaviour, these attitudes and beliefs can be modified, theoretically then leading to a reduction in re-offending.The second “R” principle is that of responsivity – or a person’s responsiveness to an intervention – which is a crucial aspect of effective rehabilitative treatments. The idea behind the responsivity principle is that it’s all well and good to identify the level of risk, and what an intervention should target, but if a person is not responsive to treatment, then things are very unlikely to change. The responsivity principle has two main components: the general and the specific components. The general component emphasizes the use of cognitive behavioural approaches to effectively reduce reoffending rates. Basically, this is linked to trying to challenge and modify beliefs and attitudes towards offending. Meanwhile, the specific component considers individual factors that may hinder successful rehabilitation, such as low motivation, personality, and, intellectual ability, and gender (having said that out loud, I am not quite sure why gender is considered an individual factor that might hinder rehabilitation. I might look into that). The theory is, that, that by addressing these individual factors, the responsivity principle increases the likelihood that rehabilitative treatments can be delivered effectively to those who have committed crimes.That all sounds, lovely right. Think about the level of risk, figure out what dynamic risk factors need to be intervened with, and then think about how to make sure someone can engage with an intervention to address those dynamic risk factors. Pretty cut and dried. Well…Even though the R-N-R Model is the “gold standard” by which prisoner rehabilitation is conducted (and it certainly has the breadth of empirical evidence to support this claim) the R-N-R model has come under significant criticism in the last 20 years. The primary criticism comes from Tony Ward and Claire Stewart in the early 2000s who note that in practice – so in real world, practical terms – the R-N-R model neglects the responsivity principle. And so, because of this, the R-N-R model runs the risk of reducing someone who has offended to a set of risk factors without any sense that those individuals are human beings that have basic needs that they were possibly trying to meet through their offending behaviour. From this, they developed the Good Lives Model (although, when looking at the Good Lives website, I think it was Tony Ward’s brainchild).So, as human beings, we all have basic needs, and we all go about achieving these needs in different ways. The GLM describes eleven “goods” that we seek to achieve/obtain throughout our lives in order to live “a good life”. These are as follows: life (wanting to live a “good life” which includes healthy living and functioning); knowledge (wanting to know more about the world); excellence in work (being good at /having a job); excellence in play (having leisure time); excellence in agency (having choice about what we do, having autonomy, power, and self-directedness); inner peace (being content and free from emotional turmoil); relatedness (having good relationships, both intimate and non-intimate); community (feeling a part of/connected to something); spirituality (either through religion or spiritual connectedness and having meaning and purpose in life); pleasure (which means feeling good in the here and the now); and creativity (being able to express oneself). It has been conceptualised that “criminogenic needs” serve as indicators that an offender has had difficulty in seeking these human “goods” and has gone about trying to achieve/obtain these goods through antisocial means, either through lack of life skills (which may not have been acquired for a variety of reason) or challenging life circumstances.An example I like to use to illustrate this is that of a parent stealing nappies for their young child because they can’t afford to buy them. You could view the parent as having antisocial tendencies and a lack of regard for the rules of society. Or, you could understand that this parent, given their financial constraints and potential limitations in being able to acquire nappies in a prosocial way, was pursuing the “good” of “life” in that they were trying to provide their child with a basic, functional need that every parent strives to fulfil for their children. While both choices are criminal, the second framing humanises the parent as someone doing the best they can within the limitations of their circumstances, and what that parent needs are opportunities to do what they need to for their children in a way that does not involve offending. Now, I can appreciate that this is perhaps an easy example to digest as the circumstances can convey a certain level of sympathy and possibly empathy. Something that might not be possible for you, good listener, to do for those who have committed crimes along the higher end of severity and harm. And that’s OK – that’s why there are folks like me doing the job we do so that you don’t have to.The main claim behind the (GLM) is that to simply focus treatment on “criminogenic need” is to suggest that there is something wrong with a person who has committed an offence and that a more humanistic approach would be to find out what these individuals need to live a different, more prosocial life. Therefore, by finding out what “goods” a person was trying to obtain through their offending and framing. these are treatment needs, or approach goals (i.e., how best to achieve their goals), which may serve to motivate them to engage in rehabilitative strategies more effectively.So, in summary, in forensic settings if we can a) work out the kind of “goods” a person was trying to obtain at the time of their offending, b) find out why that “good” is important to them, c) help them learn more prosocial/healthy/helpful ways of obtaining that good in the future we will then be able to reduce that person’s risk of trying to obtain those “goods” through antisocial means in the future (i.e., reduce risk of reoffending). Of course, in reality, things don't work out so neatly, and this is not to say that if a person’s goods are identified and addressed then things just fall neatly into place. There is a lot of work that goes into rehabilitation and a lot of barriers which can impede rehabilitation. But the GLM offers a framework to follow and offers a principle that positions those who have committed offences as human beings who have committed offences for specific reasons that relate to things that a non-offending population – so people like you and me – also strive for.And there we go. That’s it for today’s episode. Hopefully, it has been informative in some way and has given you something to think about. As I have noted throughout, this is just a theoretical underpinning, but often times things are not as clear-cut as I have outlined here. But this is the framework that should underpin rehabilitation in forensic settings. Whether that is or isn’t done is beyond my capacity to know.Like I said earlier, if you liked this episode, please rate, share, and leave a comment if you can. It all goes towards letting others know if this is a good show or a bag of shite. As always, thanks for your time.And I hope you have a good day. Or not. No pressure. Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
