Careful reading of the literature on the psychology of criminal conduct and of prior reviews of studies of treatment effects suggests that neither criminal sanctioning without provision of rehabilitative service nor servicing without reference to clinical principles of rehabilitation will succeed in reducing recidivism. What works, in our view, is the delivery of appropriate correctional service, and appropriate service reflects three psychological principles: (1) delivery of service to higher risk cases, (2) targeting of criminogenic needs, and (3) use of styles and modes of treatment (e.g., cognitive and behavioral) that are matched with client need and learning styles. These principles were applied to studies of juvenile and adult correctional treatment, which yielded 154 phi coefficients that summarized the magnitude and direction of the impact of treatment on recidivism. The effect of appropriate correctional service (mean phi = .30) was significantly (p <.05) greater than that of unspecified correctional service (.13), and both were more effective than inappropriate service (−.06) and non‐service criminal sanctioning (−.07). Service was effective within juvenile and adult corrections, in studies published before and after 1980, in randomized and nonrandomized designs, and in diversionary, community, and residential programs (albeit, attenuated in residential settings). Clinical sensitivity and a psychologically informed perspective on crime may assist in the renewed service, research, and conceptual efforts that are strongly indicated by our review.

topics becomes apparent here, in that the roles and specific contributions of forensic psychologists often remain unclear.The breadth of this text serves as both its primary strength and weakness. While its scope allows for the discussion of several topics that may be neglected in similar textbooks (e.g., the role of women in corrections), it also necessitates that many topics receive inadequate coverage (as noted above). A particular strength of the text is its thorough review of case law and discussion of varying implementation practices between states. Given its almost exclusive focus on American research and policy, this book is likely most appropriate for use with an American audience. However, due to its somewhat uneven coverage, academics and practitioners may find it to be of limited use. Rather, this book will likely be most applicable as an introductory text for university or college students. The frequent use of vignettes brings important material to life, which may help to engage students in the text. Still, the textbook's usefulness for a student population would be bolstered by the inclusion of a glossary, as well as the addition of more relevant figures with appropriate captions. Overall, given that this text primarily focuses on the crossroads of psychology and the law, while tending to provide limited coverage of correctional and criminal justice psychology (e.g., theories of crime, principles of effective correctional rehabilitation), as well as psychology's role in forensic science (e.g., biases in eyewitness testimony, empirical status of polygraph instruments), it would likely be most appropriate for an undergraduate course on psychology and the law.

No abstract

For over 30 years, criminal justice policy has been dominated by a "get tough" approach to offenders. Increasing punitive measures have failed to reduce criminal recidivism and instead have led to a rapidly growing correctional system that has strained government budgets. The inability of reliance on official punishment to deter crime is understandable within the context of the psychology of human conduct. However, this knowledge was largely ignored in the quest for harsher punishment. A better option for dealing with crime is to place greater effort on the rehabilitation of offenders. In particular, programs that adhere to the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model have been shown to reduce offender recidivism by up to 35%. The model describes: a) who should receive services (moderate and higher risk cases), b) the appropriate targets for rehabilitation services (criminogenic needs), and c) the powerful influence strategies for reducing criminal behavior (cognitive social learning). Although the RNR model is well known in the correctional field it is less well known, but equally relevant, for forensic, clinical, and counseling psychology. The paper summarizes the empirical base to RNR along with implications for research, policy, and practice.

No abstract