compare and contrast the main features of
Words: 1655 | Published: 12.30.19 | Views: 513 | Download now
Once referring to treatment in the legal justice field, specific definitions of what ‘rehabilitation’ means can vary. Pycroft and Clift (2012) problem whether to ‘rehabilitate’ someone in relation to criminality is to eliminate criminal and problematic behaviours or if perhaps another explanation may be the procedure for an individual being re-integrated back in society. Additionally , Priestley and Vanstone (2010: 1) refer to Forsyth (1987) when determining rehabilitation, calling it a procedure concerning ‘the restoration in the individual’s popularity and status as a citizen’. Definitions apart, the aim of treatment in the legal justice sector is to decrease crime by rehabilitating people who create this, where different approaches to rehabilitation have developed more than decades.
Over time, research into prisons’ effectiveness to reform offenders through direct punishment began to be questioned, wherever probation was introduced to help manage offenders throughout custody of the children and upon release in the community. “To start with, probation was associated with releasing offenders under recognisance to be great behaviour” (Robinson and Crow, 2009: 24). Following this, rehab strategies developed alongside devoir, where various methods just like drug remedy and programmes were presented as a means of deterring offenders from crime. Several éloge for rehabilitation in the criminal justice field emerged, the most influential staying the practical justification that believes changing offender’s in to law-abiding people is best for culture, communities and victims. This final reason links strongly to this risk concentrated approach to rehab, focussing on public protection, and lowering reoffending. ‘The risk management way of offender evaluation and treatment dominates the way in which correctional programmes are provided throughout the european world’ (Casey et al. 2013: 38).
Beck (1992) analysed the concept of a ‘risk society’, arguing that in made modern society, humans are be subject to more risk factors including increased criminal offenses levels. He argues that because this embrace risk is primarily ‘manufactured’ risks by human beings, patterns may therefore end up being analysed and predicted, since they are a product of human activity. Hence the idea was formulated for a risk-based approach to managing criminality. Casey ainsi que al. (2013) discuss the risk-focussed method of rehabilitation, detailing how complementing an individual’s degree of risk to the level of interventions required formulates a ‘resources follows risk’ approach to handling criminality. As Bonta and Andrews (2007: 5) state, ‘the risk principle claims that culprit recidivism could be reduced in the event the level of treatment services supplied to the culprit is proportionate to the offender’s risk to re-offend’. Idea is known as the ‘Risk-Need-Responsivity’ (RNR) model. The ‘risk’ element is to match the level of companies to the degree of risk of the offender. The ‘need’ identifies the targeted interventions associated with criminal conduct. Finally, the ‘responsivity’ aspect specifies that interventions ought to match offender’s abilities, characteristics and learning styles (Casey et ‘s., 2013).
The RNR model has been incredibly influential in the administration of offenders in society, where risk assessments and interventions allow us because of the guidelines outlined in the model (Bonta and Andrews, 2007). The RNR model’s successes in offender rehab stem from the intensive treatment approach for high-risk offenders, which target criminogenic requires, resulting in decreased recidivism costs (Ward and Maruna, 2007). This risk-based approach to rehabilitation has been inserted into the felony justice discipline and has had some impact on lowering crime and criminality. Additionally , Bonta and Andrews (2007: 1) state that ‘the legal behaviour of offenders may be predicted in a reliable, functional and useful manner’ as a result of RNR model’s ability to outlook potential future offending patterns. However , the model continues to be criticised due to the single-view method to rehabilitation where offenders seem to have little if any say in the goals made on them. This kind of arguably one-sided method inhibits offenders by taking title of their own voyage away from criminality and is thought to potentially create barriers between individual plus the criminal rights worker through the formulation of the ‘us and them’ point of view. Nevertheless, Ward and Maruna (2007: 96) state that ‘the empirical support for the RNR style is outstanding and undoubtedly suggests that offenders treated relating to their major principles are more likely to desist from assigning further offences’.
A social re-integrative approach to culprit rehabilitation comes in the form in the ‘Good Lives Model’ (GLM). Unlike the public protection focus of the RNR model, the great Lives Style (GLM) ‘has a primary desire for enhancing arrest well-being’ (Casey et ‘s. 2013: 37). GLM is targeted on the strong points of offenders and responds to their needs, abilities and interests, whilst emphasising the value of enabling these individuals to assist formulate their own goals, while the idea of what they believe to become a ‘good life’ is established (Casey et ing. 2013). The GLM uses the supposition that all people want to obtain goals and therefore offenders should be given effective support in so that it will rehabilitate all of them and help these to reach their very own goals (LÃ¶sel, 2015).
This thought of offender rehab contrasts while using incredibly risk-focussed approach to rehab as outlined in the RNR model, as the GLM focuses its principles about social the usage and well-being, as opposed to the ‘correctional’ ideology with the RNR procedure.
Another social re-integrative model of arrest rehabilitation is definitely the distance theory. ‘While you cannot find any agreed assumptive or functional definition of desistance, most criminologists have linked desistance with ceasing and refraining by offending’ (Weaver and McNeill, 2013: 37). Like the GLM, desistance theory takes the stance that by re-integrating offenders into society, supplying the appropriate support and direction to use and broaden on their determined strengths, recidivism rates could be reduced. Desistance looks at the individual’s own strengths personally, as well as in regards to social networks, in which a strategy can then be outlined to aid their energy and uniformity to change (McNeill, 2006). Hunt for desistance in neuro-scientific criminal rights resulted in various sorts of offender managing emerging, causing strategies of treatment such as enhancing offenders’ do it yourself worth and giving their very own lives which means. This consideration for individual requirements is a durability of re-integrative approaches to treatment, and it is an important focus the fact that RNR version lacks, since criticised by simply Ward and Maruna (2006: 56) who also state that “there should be a respect for individual variety and the difficulty of human being behaviour’. Both equally desistance as well as the GLM combine the potential effects from exterior conditions which could contribute to persons offending, expanding strategies of overcoming these boundaries, through the recognition of relevant techniques such as intellectual behavioural therapy (Casey ou al. 2013). As opposed to the RNR model of treatment, the desistance theory presents a more integrated approach to culprit management, in which practitioners job closely with service users to develop their particular abilities and confidence to choose their lives around. ‘Desistance itself can be not an event (like getting cured of a disease) nevertheless a process’ (McNeill, 06\: 47), it is within this technique of change that offender management comes into play.
However , once desistance theory is placed on rehabilitation procedures, it becomes important to effectively identify the offender’s place in the ‘cycle of change’. This therefore has a risk, as identified by simply Weaver and McNeill (2013: 45) who state that ‘ interventions that fail to locate the offender properly in the desistance procedure will be best case scenario misconceived including worst damaging’. Despite this potential damage, the consideration of social and cultural elements is a very clear strength of re-integrative ideas, as the RNR style lacks this kind of element the moment evaluating risk (Ward and Maruna, 2007). This move towards therapy via the diagnosis and remedying of ‘problems’ inside offenders neglects the external factors that contribute to criminality, and does not acknowledge if these individuals can be ‘corrected’ as the RNR model hopes to achieve (Graham, 2016). This overemphasis on offenders’ pasts causes a preoccupation with ‘undoing’ previous issues and repairing individuals to ‘normal’ members of society. Instead, it is contended to be even more beneficial to focus on non-criminogenic demands when rehabilitating offenders, because offenders can be more likely to build relationships options that promote wellbeing and standard of living, rather than surgery focussed primarily on ‘correctional’ methods (Ward and Stewart, 2003 cited in Casey et al., 2013).
To conclude, irrespective of re-integrative approaches appearing more humane and comprehensive compared to the RNR model, Farrall (2004) argues that it is not as simple as to recognize ones talents and assume these are the keys to preventing long term offending. Furthermore, Polaschek (2012: 1) claims that ‘the RNR model remains the only empirically validated guide to get criminal proper rights interventions that aim to support offenders to depart as a result system’. This statement clearly reflects the positive impacts which have arose from the implementation on this model of culprit rehabilitation around the world. Ward and Maruna (2007: 104) also reflect on the achievements in the RNR version stating that ‘its application by correctional services throughout the world has ended in reduced recidivism rates and safer communities’. This provides regarding why risk-based approaches to tackling offending within modern society took precedence and also have provided the focus for rehabilitation within the lawbreaker justice ball today. Even so, desistance theory has also played out an important function in surrounding the probation service and its policies, the place that the importance of interpersonal context and relationships are now considered (Weaver and McNeill, 2013). To conclude, despite the current public safeguard focus of rehabilitating offenders, a more comprehensive strategy is starting to be established. Here, concepts from both equally risk-based approaches and re-integrative theories, just like desistance theory, are becoming implemented through offender administration today, exhibiting significant impact from the research on approaches to rehabilitation.
By submitting this job, I certify that it is my own, personal work and the work of other people is duly referenced and identified in accordance with the Universitys Academic Misconduct Policy.