Retributive Parsimony

Retributive approaches to the justification of legal punishment are often thought to place exacting and unattractive demands on state officials, requiring them to expend scarce public resources on apprehending and punishing all offenders strictly in accordance with their criminal ill deserts. Against this caricature of the theory, I argue that retributivists can urge parsimony in the use of punishment. After clarifying what parsimony consists in, I show how retributivists can urge reductions in the use of punishment in order to conserve scarce resources for other valuable social purposes, minimize the foreseeable and adverse effects of legal punishment on the innocent, and accommodate the fact that existing societies fail in numerous ways to satisfy the conditions that make retributive punishment fully justified.     

(Neuro)predictions,Dangerousness, and Retributivism

Through the criminal justice system so-called dangerous offenders are, besides the offence that they are being convicted of and sentenced to, also punished for acts that they have not done but that they are believe to be likely to commit in the future. The aim of this paper is to critically discuss whether some adherents of retributivism give a plausible rationale for punishing offenders more harshly if they, all else being equal, by means of predictions are believed to be more dangerous than other offenders. While consequentialism has no problem, at least in principle, with this use of predictions most retributivists have been opponents of punishing offenders on the basis of predictions. How can an offender deserve to be punished for something that he has not done? But some retributivists like Anthony Duff and Stephen Morse have argued in favor of punishing offenders who are considered to be dangerous in the future more harshly than non-dangerous offenders. After having reconstructed their arguments in detail, it will be argued that both Duff’s and Morse’s attempts to give a retributivistic justification have several shortcomings.     

Retributivism and Multiple Offending

This article addresses the question of how multiple offenders – that is, offenders who have committed more than one crime before they are apprehended – should be punished from a retributivist point of view. Two theories are evaluated, both defending the view that there should be a bulk discount for multiple offending. According to the first theory, a bulk discount follows from the idea of a punishment ceiling for types of crimes and the principle of parsimony in punishing. According to the second, the discount follows from a certain view on mercy. However, it is argued that both theories suffer from theoretical flaws and that they are also insufficient in practical terms. That is, they fail to provide a basis for the making of decisions about how multiple-offence cases should be dealt with by the criminal justice system.     

The Harms Beyond Imprisonment: Do We Have Special Moral Obligations Towards the Families and Children of Prisoners?

This paper discusses whether the collateral harm of imprisonment to the close family members and children of prison inmates may give rise to special moral obligations towards them. Several collateral harms, including decreased psychological wellbeing, financial costs, loss of economic opportunities, and intrusion and control over their private lives, are identified. Two competing perspectives in moral philosophy are then applied in order to assess whether the harms are permissible. The first is consequentialist and the second is deontological. It is argued that both of them fails and therefore it is hard to defend the position that allowing for these harms would be morally permissible, even for the sake of the overall aims of incarceration. Instead, it is argued that these harms imply that imprisonment should only be used as a last resort. Where it is necessary, it should give rise to special moral obligations. Using the notion of residual obligation, these obligations are defended, categorized and clarified.     

Self-Control as Self-Regulation: A Return to Control Theory

In an effort to build on previous theory and research it is argued that self-control is not synonymous with impulsivity, but rather should be conceptualized as self-regulation: the capacity to override impulsive desires. Using a sample of college students and a sample of serious adult criminal offenders, we test four hypotheses regarding the relationship between self-regulation, impulsivity, and several outcome measures reflecting antisocial or criminal behavior. Our findings within the college sample more strongly support the notion of self-control as self-regulation. The result differences between samples also highlight the need to consider limitations when generalizing results from more conventional student groups.     

Assessments of the treatability of forensic patients

The treatment of mentally disordered offenders receives very little attention in the literature both by itself and in comparison to other psychological issues such as the insanity defense and the prediction of dangerousness. It is argued that the treatment of mentally disordered offenders should be seen as the more central issue and that the development of an effective technology of change can, in principle, resolve certain problems with the insanity defense and the prediction of dangerousness. From this viewpoint, assessments of treatability should be seen as more practically relevant to dispositional decisions than assessments of criminal responsibility, and improvements in the effectiveness of treatment a better approach to the problem of dangerousness than attempts to improve predictive methods.     

Homicide offender recidivism: A review of the literature

While there exists an abundance of research on the criminal histories of homicide offenders, little is known about their future criminal behavior. This review outlines the current state of knowledge regarding recidivism among homicide offenders. It addresses the dominant theories found within the literature in this field and the prevalence of recidivism among both general and subgroups of homicide offenders. In this literary review, several shortcomings are revealed which point to potential directions for future research.     

Der § 105 JGG: Entwicklungspsychologische Erkenntnisse und gutachterliche Praxis1

The paper describes the foundations drawn from developmental psychology for judging the maturity of young offenders and how expert assessment is carried out in practice according to § 105 in German Juvenile Law. This paragraph has repeatedly been the subject of public controversy. The findings of developmental psychology show clearly that young persons (18-21-year-olds) are still “structured” like adolescents in many psychical function areas. This is especially true for personality traits such as risk-taking behaviour, perception of risk, impulse control, planning horizon, self-control, peer-group influence, stimulation and similar - all relevant in criminal offences. A developmental retardation of this kind is particularly and greatly reinforced by the psycho-social strains typically affecting delinquent youths. An additional factor is a society-wide tendency for the young to retain youth-typical behaviour well into their thirties. The paper presents dimensions of maturity evaluation according to § 105 as also problematic areas in assessment by experts. In terms of constitutional law the considerable discrepancies in practice between the various states in the Federal Republic represent a serious infringement of the principle of equality before the law. Therefore both in terms of developmental psychology as also for reasons of equality before the law a ruling to place the 18-to-21-year-olds under the Jugendstrafrecht - German criminal law relating to offenders under 18 - is recommended.     

Criminal Rehabilitation Through Medical Intervention: Moral Liability and the Right to Bodily Integrity

Criminal offenders are sometimes required, by the institutions of criminal justice, to undergo medical interventions intended to promote rehabilitation. Ethical debate regarding this practice has largely proceeded on the assumption that medical interventions may only permissibly be administered to criminal offenders with their consent. In this article I challenge this assumption by suggesting that committing a crime might render one morally liable to certain forms of medical intervention. I then consider whether it is possible to respond persuasively to this challenge by invoking the right to bodily integrity. I argue that it is not.     

Predicting violence in the violent society

It is argued (a) that the leadership position of the United States in respect to our domestic rates of interpersonal violence is likely to remain unchallenged so long as public policy continues to encourage and support the rearing of biologically susceptible children by parents (especially single parents) who are unwilling or unable to socialize those children. This high incidence of violent crime in America underscores the importance of two additional issues of special interest to psychologists: (b) Are mental health professionals able to predict violence in individual mental patients or in criminal offenders (and how accurate do such predictions need to be in order to meet ethical standards)? and (c) How should clinicians apportion their “duty to protect” between their patients and their patients' potential victims? These issues are briefly reviewed, and the interested reader is referred to more comprehensive discussions in the recent literature.     

sprees and runs: opportunity construction and criminal episodes

Criminal decision-making researchers generally focus either on offenders' criteria for identifying promising targets or on how offenders' lifestyles condition crime's appeal. Obviously, significant events bridge offenders' routines and discrete criminal choices. However, researchers often neglect the immediate experiences and events that enact lifestyles in particular choices. Drawing on 110 accounts of criminal events by street thieves, this article examines criminal choice. The findings indicate that offenders assess opportunity in light of recent decisions and events. Like all agents, they reference a general outlook and lessons taken from recent choices; looking backward as well as forward, they frame their options within a line of relevant events. When offenders confront potentially criminal situations or promising targets, perceptual outcomes of recent crimes operate alongside a temporary sense of commitment to criminal trajectories of action to inspire a serendipitous optimism. This complex decision-making can happen in an instant and is imperceptible without asking offenders to reflect on the sequential events that precede crime.     

Denial and minimization among sex offenders

A review of empirical studies of offenders—particularly sex offenders, and more particularly those who offend against children—demonstrates that denial of offenses and minimization of offending behavior are quite common at every stage of the criminal justice process. This is true during police interviews, during pretrial and presentencing mental health evaluations, among incarcerated offenders, among offenders seeking treatment, among offenders facing parole review, and among offenders already released into the community. This review highlights gaps in the research literature arising from inconsistencies in the definitions and measurement of denial and minimization, from the stage of adjudication or treatment at which measurements are made, and from the use of polygraphy to increase disclosures. Despite these limitations on the generalizability of empirical findings, it appears beyond dispute that many sex offenders maintain their innocence in the face of evidence to the contrary or even criminal conviction, and that many are able to recite additional crimes they have committed when they believe it is in their self-interest to do so.     

Against Supermax

abstract Supermax prisons subject inmates to extreme isolation and sensory deprivation for extended periods of time. Crime reduction and retributive arguments in favour of supermax confinement are elaborated. Both types of arguments are shown to falter once the logic of the two approaches to the justification of legal punishment is made clear and evidence about the effects of supermax confinement on inmates is considered. It is also argued that many criminal offenders suffer from defects in their capacities for morally responsible action, lack sufficient opportunities to remain law‐abiding, or are understandably alienated from society and the prison regime. The implications of this more realistic picture of offenders for supermax confinement are then explored briefly.     

“Prison Will Either Make Ya or Break Ya”: Punishment,Deterrence, and the Criminal Lifestyle

Although a prison sentence is often considered to be among the worst punishments that the state can provide, previous research indicates that offenders do not necessarily share this view. Some inmates, for example, adjust to prison life with relative ease, do not view their time in prison as severe punishment, and may even prefer prison to alternative sanctions such as boot camp or probation. To help explain such views, we point to the utility of a “criminal lifestyle” perspective. We argue that offenders who are committed to the values of the criminal subculture tend to view prison in a unique way. For various reasons, such offenders are less likely than others to view imprisonment as difficult or severe and they are less likely to be deterred by prison. Drawing on data from a large inmate survey, we find initial empirical support for these arguments. Implications for deterrence and future research are discussed.     

Stories of crime,stories of suffering: A narrative perspective on ethical issues in criminal justice counselling

Counsellors working with prisoners often listen to stories that are both stories of crime and stories of suffering. From a criminal justice perspective, the suffering of offenders is deliberately inflicted as punishment. From a counselling perspective, however, responding to the suffering of a client and even trying to relieve it is a basic ethical concern. So counsellors, working with offenders, may face the ethical question of how to integrate a response to the suffering of offenders with a response to crime, especially when confronted with stories of cruel, violent crimes. In this paper, it is argued that a narrative perspective on counselling offers a framework in which these responses may be integrated. Here, the principle of recognizing privileged authorship of persons is crucial. The concepts of ‘double listening for implicit others’ and ‘relationally rich stories’ are developed, which are based on concepts and ideas from narrative therapy. These serve as a first step of translating the narrative ethical framework to counselling practice.     

A longitudinal examination of the relation between co‐offending with violent accomplices and violent crime

Although the idea that youthful offenders are affected by the company they keep is widely accepted, evidence in support of this idea is based primarily on reports provided by offenders and their peers. As an alternative to relying on reports of criminal behavior, a method that may overestimate the role that peers play in criminal behavior, the current research on co‐offending uses court records to identify and track over time individuals who are known to commit crimes together. The present investigation is the first co‐offending study to track patterns of violent criminal behavior (over an 18‐year period) among a sample of urban offenders and their accomplices. The study tests whether violence “spreads” from violent offenders to those inexperienced in violence. Results indicate that nonviolent offenders who commit their first co‐offense with violent accomplices are at increased risk for subsequent serious violent crime. Findings suggest that lessons of violence can be learned “on the street,” where knowledge is passed along through impromptu social contexts, including those in which offenders commit crimes together. Aggr. Behav. 28:97–108, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Legal Punishment and the Public Identification of Offenders

In the United States, the identities of criminal offenders are matters of public record, accessible to prospective employers, the press, and ordinary citizens. In European countries, the identities of offenders are routinely kept hidden, with some exceptions. The question addressed in this discussion concerns whether the public disclosure of the identities of offenders is part and parcel of their legal punishment. My contentions are that public disclosure is not conceptually part of legal punishment, necessary to serve substantive penal aims, or likely to enhance penal aims. At times, it will conflict with defensible aims of legal punishment. Other values might support or require the public identification of criminal offenders, but the aims of legal punishment do not appear to do so.     

Score Metric Equivalence of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) across criminal offenders in North America and the United Kingdom: a critique of Cooke, Michie, Hart, and Clark (2005) and new analyses

David Cooke and colleagues have published a series of item response theory (IRT) studies investigating the equivalence of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) for European versus North American (NA) male criminal offenders. They have consistently concluded that PCL-R scores are not equivalent, with European offenders receiving scores up to five points lower than those in NA when matched according to the latent trait. In this article, the authors critique the Cooke et al. analyses and demonstrate how their anchor item selection method is responsible for their final conclusions concerning the apparent lack of equivalence. The authors provide a competing IRT analysis using an iterative purification strategy for anchor item selection and show how this more justifiable approach leads to very different conclusions regarding the equivalence of the PCL-R. More generally, it is argued that strong interpretations of IRT analyses in the presence of uncorroborated anchor items can be highly misleading when evaluating score metric equivalence.     

When lying changes memory for the truth

In the legal field, victims and offenders frequently lie to avoid talking about serious incidents, such as past experiences of sexual abuse or criminal involvement. Although these individuals may initially lie about an experienced event, oftentimes these same people eventually abandon their lies and are forthcoming with what truly happened. To date, it is unclear whether such lying affects later statements about one’s memory for the experienced event. The impetus of the present review is to compile the current state of knowledge on the effects of lying on memory. Based on existing literature, we will describe how deceptive strategies (e.g., false denials) regarding what is remembered may affect memory in consequential ways, such as forgetting of details, falsely remembering features that were not present, or a combination of both. It will be argued that the current literature suggests that mnemonic outcome is contingent on the type of lie and we will propose a theoretical framework outlining which forms of lying likely result in certain memory outcomes. Potential avenues of future research also will be discussed.