Background Information: The LS/CMI is the “fourth generation” revision (see appendix A to learn about 3 and 4 generation instruments) of the LSI-R that provides a comprehensive measure of offender risk, needs, and responsivity (RNR) factors, as well as a fully functional case management tool. The LS/CMI system is designed to assist professionals in management and treatment planning with adult and late adolescent male and female offenders in justice, forensic, correctional, prevention, and related agencies. By combining risk assessment with case management in a single system, the LS/CMI gives the professional all the necessary tools in a single application.

We begin the concluding chapter by returning to the fact that ‘who’ constitutes a sex offender changes across time, space, and place, in accordance to the temporally relevant understanding of sexual mores of their time, will continue to change—despite some underlying tenants of what is considered most ‘evil.’ We then tie discussions of biopolitics, masculinities, emotions, precarity, stigma, and abjection together and draw out implications for policy, practice, and programming, answering the greater questions of what such realities mean for sex offenders, criminal justice staff, and societies more generally. We show how we attempted to move the discussion of the chimeric sex offender away from its more damaging cleavages that, in the end, reinforce conceptions of sex offenders as permanently sick and dangerous and explain that, what sex offenders teach us, is that there are many pitfalls internationally that …

THE RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITY (RNR) model has arguably become the premier model of offender assessment and rehabilitation (Cullen, 2012; Ogloff & Davis, 2004; Polaschek, 2012). The RNR model made its published debut in 1990 (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990), with the first empirical test of the principles published a few months later (Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen, 1990). In the Andrews, Bonta and Hoge paper, four principles were presented with respect to offender treatment. The first three principles dealt with the who, what, and how of offender rehabilitation. The risk principle stated that the intensity of treatment should be matched to the risk level of the offender, with the greatest amount of treatment services being directed to the higher-risk offender. The need principle dictated that treatment goals should be the criminogenic needs that are functionally related to criminal behavior. The responsivity principle directed service providers to use cognitive-behavioral techniques to bring about change while being attentive to individual factors such as personality, gender, and motivation. The fourth principle was the override principle, which called for professional discretion in cases where behavior could not be explained with existing knowledge. Since 1990 the RNR model has expanded to include many more principles (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a; 2010b), but the principles of risk, need, and responsivity remain at the core. Most of the research has focused on the risk and need principles, while the research on the responsivity principle has been a poor cousin. There are many reasons for this situation, two of which are the ease of conducting research on risk and need compared to responsivity and the vagueness of the original conceptualization of responsivity by Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge (1990). In this paper, we attempt to improve our understanding of the responsivity principle and provide suggestions to furthering research on responsivity. First, however, we summarize the impact of the RNR model on correctional practice. Next, we trace the history of the RNR model with special emphasis on the responsivity principle. Following this discussion, we review how the responsivity principle has come to mean simply a consideration of client characteristics in the absence of the environment where the work takes place, such as therapist/helper characteristics and skills. We then end the article with a discussion of how we can forward a constructive research agenda on the responsivity principle.

This chapter illustrates how the contributions of setting and social context may be approached from a general personality and cognitive social learning perspective. There are dramatic differences in the state of knowledge in the various social contexts. In the domain of family of origin, the ability to predict and influence youthful offending is truly impressive. It is approaching causal or functional significance. Forming social attachments is the basis to healthy relationships that could protect a child from a criminal trajectory. Families operate along two dimensions: the relationship and the structuring/normative dimensions. Children who are raised in families in which there is a poor parental relationship and the parents exercise poor parenting techniques are most at risk for delinquency. Family interventions can reduce delinquency. The predictive validity of assessments in the domains of home, school, work, and leisure are impressive. Targeting parent–child relationships and parental structuring skills are associated with positive effects.

When someone is hurt or wronged, a common response is to strike back. It occurs at both the individual and societal levels. Hurts are to be punished, but not unduly so. Fairness and justice also apply. In almost all societies, punishment is a consequence of breaking the law, and the application of punishment is highly regulated. There are many purposes for punishment within the criminal justice system, which include retribution, denunciation of the act, and deterrence. This chapter focuses on these varying purposes. The psychology of punishment shows that punishment only “works” under very specific conditions, conditions that the criminal justice system cannot replicate. Laboratory studies of punishment clearly show that for punishment to be effective it must follow the behavior with certainty and immediacy and at the right intensity. In the real world, laboratory conditions are impossible. Punishment has many undesirable “side effects” that are counterproductive in the suppression of antisocial behavior. Restorative justice, with the inclusion of appropriate treatment, offers a viable alternative to “get tough” approaches in reducing crime.

This chapter provides an overview of the psychology of criminal conduct (PCC), whose objective is to understand variation in the criminal behavior of individuals. The understanding sought is empirical (research based), theoretical (explanatory), and practical (applied). There are substantial individual differences in criminal behavior that are evidenced through a variety of research approaches from around the world in a variety of biological and social contexts, such as those associated with age, race, gender, and socioeconomic class. PCC is a major part of criminology and has a vast storage of knowledge to draw upon from general human psychology and, in particular, from a general personality and cognitive social learning psychology. PCC seeks a general, holistic, and truly interdisciplinary understanding of variation in the criminal behavior of individuals that all disciplines, professionals, and the public find valuable. Professionally, a psychology of criminal conduct involves the ethical application of psychological knowledge and methods to the practical tasks of predicting and influencing the likelihood of criminal behavior and to the reduction of the human and social costs associated with crime and criminal justice processing.

Antisocial personality is one of the best predictors of criminal behavior. This chapter explores the notion of antisocial personality in more depth, with discussions of different perspectives of antisocial personality. There are different meanings that can be assigned to the term “antisocial personality.” The first meaning is simply the extremes of normal dimensions of personality that are common to all. The second meaning is rooted in psychopathology, which considers antisocial personality as a mental disorder, sees it as unhealthy and abnormal, as a disease. The chapter outlines current knowledge of personality in general. The study of personality is one of the branches of psychology and the latest thinking about personality informs the understanding of criminal conduct. Criminology's position on personality and traces the remarkable transition in criminology's respect for personality is reviewed. The chapter also examines forensic/clinical psychology and psychiatry's preoccupation with mental disorder through the study of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy. Finally, it concludes with a critique of forensic/mental health conceptualizations of antisocial personality.

This chapter discusses the implications of the theoretical ideas on people–place relationships for prisoner reintegration policy. Policy initiatives implemented to tackle the problems of cities and pockets of deprivation within them often highlight the issue of urban crime, the governance of crime and local community safety. The chapter argues that a conceptual approach, broad and nuanced enough to assess 'criminal behaviour in context', should take into account individual criminal histories – past experiences, present situations and future prospects. It assesses the potential relationships between offenders and practitioners to support processes of rehabilitation and desistance. The report on social exclusion in England and Wales pays scant regard to the geographical location of offenders, or the extent to which it correlates to spatial patterns of social deprivation. Social policy must concentrate on developing what Sen …