Criminal Behavior textbook
Chapter 1 (Crime in Canada)
Introduction
Samir Example
-Samir who was incarcerated at the age of 28
Serving 36 month sentence
For armed robbery
In federal prison
He has served time before
He served time in both secure custody as a youth and also a provincial jail (for property crimes) ← Theft, break and enter, drug possession and couple of assaults
Dropped out of high school prior to completing grade 10
Had difficulty holding down a job
Had a difficult childhood, long history of drug and alcohol use, multiple brief relationships
Assessment for Samir
-Assessments indicate that Samir presents as impulsive with poor problem solving skills
-Also hanging out with antisocial peers
This may seem as though it is related to his consistent involvement with the courts as an adult.
Claims that he wants treatment but is somehow unclear regarding what this would entail…
Prior involvement in counselling has not been successful in reducing his criminality.
Recently he met a potential partner and he hopes this relationship, along with improved employment skills, will help him straighten out.
Rn his main form of leisure has been going to bars with his friends.
In 2020 over 2 million criminal incidents (excluding traffic reports) were reported to the police.
76% of these criminal incidents were non-violent with property crimes (break and enter, theft, fraud, mischief) accounting for 58% of all reported criminal incidents!
Further, most people found guilty of a crime in Canada will likely be sentenced to probation or will receive a short custodial sentence (less than six months) (Department of Justice, 2017; Public Safety Canada, 2022)
Most people who receive longer custodial sentences will eventually be released back into the community.
-Thus, people who are sentenced will ultimately need to rebuild relationships with their families and community, find employment, and learn how to adopt a prosocial lifestyle to avoid further encounters with the justice system.
Get tough on crime era (led by Prime minister stephen harper)
-This period witnessed the establishment of many laws that intended to restore “balance” in the criminal justice system..
-These new laws abolished early parole for non-violent first time federally sentenced people
-Increased inmate accountability and inmate cost (room and board, phone usage,)
-Overhauled the inmate grievance system to eliminate frivolous applications, and increased the rights of victims of crime in terms of access to information, participation in decisions, and restitution.
-Overhauled the inmate grievance system – They completely redesigned the process that allows prisoners to formally complain about problems or mistreatment.
-To eliminate frivolous applications – They wanted to reduce or stop complaints that are considered trivial, unnecessary, or not serious.
-Increased the rights of victims of crime – They made changes to give people who were harmed by a crime more legal rights and protections.
-In terms of access to information, participation in decisions, and restitution – Specifically, victims now:
Can get more information about the offender or the case.
Can take part in decisions that affect them, such as parole hearings.
Have a better chance of receiving compensation or repayment for the harm caused.
-In 2011 the criminal code was amended such that the courts could impose consecutive 25 year parole eligibility in case of multiple first degree homicides.
If you killed 5 people, the court could order the 25-year periods to run consecutively, meaning they would have to wait 125 years before even being considered for parole.(cuz each body represent 25 years) (5x25=125)
If you were convicted of a first-degree murder before the 2011 amendment, you would typically face one 25-year parole ineligibility period, no matter how many murders there were.
What it means by parol ineligibility is that the prisoner must serve before they are allowed to apply for parole
-The increase of media has drawn attention to systematic problems within the correctional system that adversely impact criminalized people.
For example:
Systemic biases against Black and Indigenous people
Bias Behind Bars: The Globe’s Newest Investigation Finds a Prison System Stacked Against Black and Indigenous inmates (Cardoso, 2020)
Failure to provide basic healthcare to pregnant women
Canadian Woman Wins Settlement for Death of Son Born in Jail (Gilna, 2018)
COVID-related hardships endured by incarcerated populations
Public health crisis: Canada’s prison conditions during pandemic being investigated (Rodriguez, 2021)
The inhumane use of solitary confinement
Canadian inmates still face isolation amounting to torture, experts say (CBC News, 2022)
Dry cells to be banned for women prisoners suspected of carrying contraband in bodies (Osman, April 11, 2022).
Media Spotlight article
This article reports on November 2021 ruling by the supreme Court of Nova Scotia “rendering dry celling”
This is a form of solitary confinement where a prisoner is placed in a cell without running water or toilets and also monitored 24 hours a day so that any human waste can be inspected for contraband—typically used when there's suspicion contraband may be concealed in a "body cavity"
Before the court ruling, women who are put through dry ceilings can be stuck there for a while.
The issue is regarding women hiding things up their vaginas, the law was written with the rectum in mind (sticking drugs up ur butt). If you hide something up your rectum it will surely come out naturally within a “predictable timeframe.”
But if staff suspected someone stuffing something up their coochie, there was no natural “expulsion” process to end the confinement.
The issue arises when women are held in a dry cell for a longer period of time, waiting for proof one way or another.
This is why the court found it discriminatory and unconstitutional under the charter.
The Lisa Adams case: She was held in solitary confinement (dry celling) for 16 days in Nova Scotia prison for suspicion of concealing crystal meth in her vagina.
A medical exam had revealed that she was not carrying crystal meth …
The Nova Scotia court gave the government 6 months to amend the law, making it less biased against women.
On April 11th 2022, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) announced that dry cells would be banned for incarcerated women suspected of carrying contraband in their bodies.
It is however still permitted for men
Trudeau Liberal era
2018 Cannabis act became a law
This legalized the sale and purchasing of small amounts of cannabis in Canada for people who are 18+.
Also in response to the increase in illicit drug-related deaths in BC, the federal government granted the province to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of certain drugs (including opiods, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ecstasy) during a three year period effective on January 31st 2023.
The supreme court of Canada (SCC)
-The SCC continues to strike down conservative sentencing reforms
On April 15th, 2016, the SCC ruled that the one year mandatory minimum sentence for people convicted of a drug crime was unconstitutional.
R. v. Lloyd (2016)
The problem: Judges couldn’t give a lighter sentence even if circumstances were minor.
What SCC said: This law was unconstitutional because it could lead to unfairly harsh punishment.
On the same day the SCC also ruled that persons denied bail (due to prior convictions) should receive credit for time served upon sentencing. (Reversing another conservative law)
R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali, (2016)
Problem: This meant they ended up serving extra time compared to others.
What SCC said: That was unconstitutional — everyone should get credit for time served, even if they were denied bail for prior offences.
On May 27th 2022, the SCC struck down yet another conservative enacted law, ruling that imposing consecutive periods of 25 year parole ineligibility in cases of multiple degree murders is unconstitutional.
R. v. Bissonnette (2022)
Problem: This meant someone could be sentenced to die in prison with no realistic chance of release, which violated human dignity.
What SCC said: That law was unconstitutional, so now the maximum parole ineligibility for first-degree murder stays at 25 years, no matter how many murders.
To avoid confusion regarding the 2011 law change and the 2022 SCC over ruling
-2011 law change (Conservative government): Judges were allowed to “stack” parole ineligibility periods for first-degree murder.
Example: If someone killed 5 people, they could be given 25 years × 5 = 125 years before being eligible for parole. In practice, that meant they would die in prison without ever having a real chance of release.
-2022 Supreme Court ruling (R. v. Bissonnette): The SCC struck this law down. The Court said it violated human dignity because it completely removed any realistic chance of rehabilitation or reintegration.
Now, no matter how many people someone kills, the maximum parole ineligibility remains 25 years.
-Black and Indigenous people in Canada’s prison system face systemic barriers that make it harder for them to reintegrate into society after incarceration.
-Report from May 31, 2022 (Office of the Auditor General):
Found that Black and Indigenous prisoners are kept in custody longer and are placed at higher security levels compared to White prisoners.
This shows unequal treatment inside prisons.
-Reports from the Correctional Investigator:
Has repeatedly warned about systemic issues facing Indigenous people in prison.
In 2016, raised concerns about reintegration barriers for Indigenous prisoners in general.
In 2021, specifically pointed out that Indigenous women face unique and significant barriers.
A Psychological Understanding of Criminal Behaviour
-Psychology explores two types of individual differences:
(1) intra-individual differences: variations in criminal conduct within an individual across time
“Intra” means within.
This is about changes in one person over time.
Example in criminal behavior: Imagine someone commits minor thefts as a teenager, then later escalates to more serious crimes as an adult, and eventually stops offending. That change over time within that one person is an intra-individual difference.
(2) inter-individual differences: variations in criminal conduct between groups of individuals.
“Inter” means between.
This is about differences between people or groups of people.
Example in criminal behavior: One group of people may commit violent crimes more often than another group, or some people are more likely to commit fraud while others are more likely to commit assault. These differences between individuals or groups are inter-individual differences.
-“The exploration of social influences is of great interest to sociologists. As McGuire (2004) noted, a key difference between psychology and sociology is the level or focus of comparisons: psychology focuses on individuals whereas sociology focuses on groups. McGuire used the analogy of a microscope, arguing that psychology uses a much higher level of magnification to see things (about crime) that are not apparent from a different view” ← From textbook
To understand criminal conduct, we must consider both the broader social context and individual differences
EX: Not all individuals who are poor commit criminal acts, nor do all well-off individuals avoid crime.
Differences in criminal behavior exist between people, regardless of social or economic status. Two people with similar circumstances can behave very differently.
- Justice-impacted people are very heterogeneous (Piquero, 2008).
Explanation: People who have been involved in the justice system are not all the same—they differ widely in behavior, background, and circumstances.
- Aggregate age–crime data can hide important individual differences (Barnett et al., 1987; Hussong et al., 2004).
Explanation: Looking at crime rates by age in a big group makes it seem like everyone follows the same pattern, but individual life paths can be very different.
- About 70% of people who commit crimes follow the age–crime curve (Piquero, 2008).
Explanation: Most offenders commit more crimes in their teens and early 20s, then naturally reduce criminal activity as they get older.
- Only a small percentage remain criminally active into adulthood.
Explanation: Life-course-persistent offenders are rare; most people “age out” of crime.
- +Implication: Group-level explanations need to consider individual differences to fully understand criminal behavior.
Explanation: Psychological understanding of crime requires looking at the unique traits and life paths of individuals, not just overall trends.
Key Terminology
Forensic Psychology Notes
Broad definition: Application of psychology to the legal system (Pozzulo et al., 2021)
Includes work with offenders, victims, law enforcement, and legal processes
Narrow/clinical definition: Clinical psychology practiced in legal contexts (Huss, 2009)
Focus on mental health assessments, therapy, offender evaluations
Court-focused definition: Study of risk assessment and expert testimony (McGuire, 2002)
Helps courts make decisions
Focus on guiding legal decision-making rather than understanding criminal behavior
Psychology of Criminal behaviour→ Terminology by country
United Kingdom: Called criminological psychology (McGuire, 2002)
Focus: Psychological study of criminal behavior
United States & Canada: Often called correctional psychology (Magaletta & Boothby, 2003)
Focus: Psychology applied within correctional settings
Key point: Terminology differs by country, but both study psychological aspects of crime and offenders
Correctional Psychology (Magaletta & Boothby, 2003)
-They both recognized …
Roles of correctional psychologists:
Conduct crisis management
Provide individual and group psychotherapy
Work with general population inmates and justice-impacted people with mental disorders or substance use issues
Person-First Language in Criminal Justice & Psychology
Principle: Use person-first language to avoid stigmatizing individuals.
People should not be defined solely by harmful behaviors or negative experiences.
Examples of outdated/offensive terms:
Offender, mentally disordered offender (MDO), substance abuser, criminal, rapist, victim
These terms label and stigmatize individuals
Preferred person-first alternatives:
Offender → incarcerated person, justice-impacted person, criminalized individual
Victim → sometimes survivor (if known/preferred)
Purpose of language change:
Not to minimize criminal behavior
To acknowledge that individuals are more than their offenses
Other considerations:
Terminology regarding gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, and cultural heritage is also evolving
Language should reflect respect and current understanding
What is Crime?
Understanding Crime Across Countries
Observation: Crime and incarceration rates vary across countries.
Suggests differences in how crime is defined and society’s tolerance for certain behaviors.
Factors influencing what is considered a crime (McGuire, 2004):
Individual motivation
Opportunity to commit the act
Politics
Social conventions
Context of the behavior
Challenges in defining crime:
Muncie (2001) identified 11 separate definitions of crime
Demonstrates the difficulty of creating a single, perfect definition
Key takeaway: Crime is not absolute; it is socially and contextually defined, which explains cross-country variations.
Types of crime definitions:
Legal: Acts prohibited by the state and punishable under law
Moral: Violations of religious or moral norms, punishable by supreme beings
Social: Violations of community norms/customs, punishable by society
Psychological: Acts that are rewarding to the perpetrator but harmful to others
Social Construction of Crime vs. Cross-Country Consistency
Crime is socially constructed: Society decides what behaviors are considered criminal.
Early research (Newman, 1976, 1977):
Conducted surveys using vignettes describing criminal situations (e.g., robbery with injury, incest).
The sample included people from six countries.
Findings:
High agreement across countries on what behaviors are considered criminal.
Examples of universally recognized crimes: Robbery, theft, incest
Key takeaway: While definitions of crime can vary by culture and context, certain acts (especially violent or exploitative crimes) are consistently seen as criminal across different societies
Crime as a Socially Constructed Phenomenon
Crime is socially constructed: Society defines what behaviors are criminal.
Newman’s research (1976, 1977):
Used vignettes describing situations (e.g., robbery with injury, incest).
Surveyed people in six countries.
Findings:
High agreement across countries on what is considered criminal.
Universally recognized crimes: Robbery, theft, incest.
Key takeaway: Despite variations in definitions and tolerance, certain crimes are consistently seen as criminal across cultures.
Working Definition of Criminal Behavior
Source: Bartol & Bartol (2017)
Definition: Crime is intentional behavior that violates a criminal code
Intentional: Did not occur accidentally, without justification, or without excuse
Relevance: Incorporates intent, addressing Canadian concerns about criminal responsibility
Key takeaway: Only deliberate acts that break the law are considered criminal; accidental or excusable acts are excluded
Importance of Defining Crime
Why definition matters:
Courts, probation officers, jails, and prisons manage crime, but a clear definition of crime influences crime rates and prevalence.
A more restrictive or conservative definition will decrease reported crime rates.
Cultural and temporal variations:
Definitions of crime must account for intercultural differences in norms and acceptable behavior.
Norms can change over time within a culture.
Example – Abortion in the U.S.:
Roe v. Wade (1973): Supreme Court ruled a pregnant woman has the right to abortion.
May 2, 2022: Leaked draft Supreme Court decision indicated abortion rights could be struck down, letting states regulate abortion laws (Gerstein & Ward, 2022).
June 24, 2022: Supreme Court officially released decision; abortion could become a crime in some states, showing how legal definitions and criminalization can change over time.
Critical Stats and Facts
Sources of Information on Crime in Canada
Official sources:
Police reports compiled by Statistics Canada
Strength: Accurate records of reported crimes
Weakness: Only captures crimes that are reported
Unofficial sources:
Surveys asking people if they have committed crimes or been victimized
Strength: Captures unreported crimes
Weakness: May rely on self-report, which can be biased or inaccurate
Key takeaway:
To understand the full nature and scope of crime, it is important to consider both official and unofficial sources
Is Crime Increasing in Canada?
Public Perception vs. Crime Trends in Canada
Public perception:
2012: 39% of Canadians believed crime was increasing
2020: 48% believed crime was increasing (Angus Reid Institute, 2020)
Police-reported crime trends (1962–2020):
1962–1992: Steady increase in all crime categories
1992–2015: Steady decline in all crime categories
2015–2019: Five-year increase in all crime categories (aligns with public perception)
2019–2020: Slight decrease in all crime categories
Impact of COVID-19 (2020):
Certain crimes increased: Intimate partner violence (IPV), hate crimes
Certain crimes decreased: Property crime, gun violence
Key point: Crime trends during COVID are mixed and context-dependent
Key takeaway: Public perception of crime partially aligns with actual trends, but overall trends are complex and vary by crime type
Controversies and Emerging Areas Article
Crime Trends During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada
Hate crimes:
2020: 2,669 police-reported hate crime incidents—the highest since 2009 (Wang & Moreau, 2022)
Increase from 2019: +37% (718 more incidents)
Race/ethnicity-targeted hate crimes: +80% (from 884 in 2019 to 1,594 in 2020)
Most affected groups: Black, East/Southeast Asian, Indigenous, South Asian populations
Overall police-reported crime:
Early pandemic (first four months): decreased by 16% due to lockdown measures
Examples of decreases: Property crime, impaired driving, sexual assaults by non-family members
Domestic disturbances:
Calls increased by 12% during early pandemic
Child pornography:
Cases increased by 23% between 2019 and 2020 (Moreau, 2021)
Understanding Police-Reported Crime Data
Limitation: Figure 1.1 shows only crimes reported to the police
Many crimes go unreported, so these figures underestimate actual crime
Crime rates vs. incidence rates:
Police-reported crime rates are actually incidence rates
Reflect number of reported criminal incidents relative to the population
Example (2020 violent crime):
Violent crime incidence rate: 843 per 100,000 people
Meaning: For every 100,000 Canadians, 843 violent crime incidents were reported to police
Key takeaway: Police-reported crime data are useful but underrepresent total crime; incidence rates show reports relative to population size
Crime Prevalence and Incidence
Prevalence vs. incidence:
Prevalence rate: Proportion of a population involved in crime (historical: lifetime; current: past year or six months)
Incidence rate: Number of criminal incidents relative to the population
2020 Canadian crime statistics (Moreau, 2021; Statistics Canada, 2020a):
Incidence rate: 5,301 crimes per 100,000 people = 2,225,601 reported criminal incidents
People charged: 567,337 (some committed multiple crimes)
Prevalence rate: ~1.5% of the population charged with a crime
Important note:
Being charged does not guarantee a conviction
Criminal charges occur every three minutes in Canada
Key takeaway: Both incidence and prevalence rates provide insight into crime, but they measure different aspects—incidents vs. people involved
The Nature of Police Reported Crime
Non-Violent vs. Violent Crime in Canada (2020)
Police-reported crime:
Violent crime: 24%
Non-violent crime: 76%, mostly property crimes (e.g., theft)
Adult court – most common cases:
Common assault (usually no physical injury)
Impaired driving
Theft
Youth court – most common cases:
Common assault
Theft
Failure to comply with order (likely breaking probation rules)
Key takeaway: Most crimes reported and prosecuted are non-violent, highlighting the prevalence of minor offenses in both adult and youth courts
Serious vs. Non-Serious Crime in Canada (2020)
Homicide in courts:
Youth court: <0.2% of all cases
Adult court: <0.2% of all cases
Reality vs. media portrayal:
Media sensationalizes violent crimes like homicide.
In reality, most crimes are non-violent and property-related.
Key takeaway: Serious crimes such as homicide are extremely rare in Canada’s justice system, but media coverage can distort public perception by overemphasizing them.
Crime severity Index
The Crime Funnel in Canada (2020)
Step 1 – Crimes Reported to Police
Total: ~2.2 million criminal incidents reported (Moreau, 2021).
This represents the starting point of the justice process.
Step 2 – Court Convictions
Out of those reported incidents, only 189,546 adults were convicted (Statistics Canada, 2021a).
This shows that most reported incidents do not result in a conviction due to factors like insufficient evidence, charges being dropped, or alternative resolutions.
Step 3 – Custodial Sentences (Provincial/Territorial)
Of those convicted, 35,562 people were admitted to a provincial or territorial custodial facility.
These are sentences of less than two years.
Equivalent to 8.5% of reported incidents leading to a provincial/territorial prison sentence.
Step 4 – Custodial Sentences (Federal)
Only 3,575 people were admitted to federal custody.
Federal sentences are two years or longer.
This is well under 1% of reported incidents.
Length of Sentences
Sentence Lengths
Nearly half (47.0%) of custodial sentences are less than 1 month.
Gender differences:
~60% of women and 50% of men receive a sentence of one month or less.
83.3% of women and 79.4% of men receive a sentence of six months or less.
Only 3.2% of custody sentences are long enough to fall under federal jurisdiction (2+ years).
Just 6.1% of adults receive sentences greater than 12 months.
Implications for Corrections
Short sentences = limited time for:
Full assessments of offenders.
Participation in rehabilitative programs (e.g., treatment, education, skills).
People serving longer sentences are a minority, but they have the most opportunity to engage in programming before release.
Community-based programs are proven effective in reducing reoffending, but some offenders still need prison-based interventions to address public safety risks.
The issue is not about increasing sentence lengths but about recognizing that sentencing patterns directly affect correctional operations (e.g., program delivery, treatment availability).
Variations across Provinces
Regional Variations in Crime Rates (Canada, 2020)
General Trend
Crime rates vary significantly across provinces and territories.
Overall pattern: Crime tends to be higher the further west and north you move in Canada.
Notable Differences
The Northwest Territories has the highest rate — about 8 times the national average.
Other northern regions (Nunavut, Yukon) and western provinces (Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta) also report crime rates well above the Canadian average.
Provinces in central and eastern Canada (e.g., Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic provinces) typically have lower-than-average crime rates.
Implications
Regional variations reflect differences in social, economic, and cultural factors, including:
Rates of poverty and unemployment.
Substance abuse and mental health issues.
Policing practices and resources.
Historical and ongoing colonial impacts, particularly in northern and Indigenous communities.
Understanding these differences is essential for tailoring policy, prevention, and intervention strategies to specific regional needs rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all national approach.
Crime Rates by Gender and Race
Historical context
Traditionally, Canadian police departments — and by extension Statistics Canada — only collected crime statistics by gender, not by race or ethnicity.
This limited the ability to study how race intersects with crime and justice outcomes.
Recent changes
On July 15, 2020, Statistics Canada and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) announced a new initiative.
They began consultations with partners and stakeholders to explore how to best collect race and ethnicity data on:
Victims of crime
People accused of crimes
Significance
This marks an important shift toward recognizing the role of race, racism, and systemic bias in crime statistics and the criminal justice system.
Better data can help researchers, policymakers, and communities understand disparities and develop more equitable justice practices.
International context
Canada’s Incarceration Rates Compared Internationally
Canada’s incarceration rate (2020):
104 per 100,000 population
Comparison with the United States:
U.S. rate: 639 per 100,000
Canada’s rate is much lower than the U.S., which has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.
Canada’s global ranking:
Ranked 143 out of 223 Western and European countries in proportion of population incarcerated.
This means Canada’s rate is on the higher side globally, though not extreme compared to the U.S.
Median comparison:
Median incarceration rate across 223 Western and European countries: 90 per 100,000.
Canada’s rate (104 per 100,000) is above the median, showing Canada incarcerates more than many peer countries, even if far below the U.S.
Key takeaway:
While Canada’s incarceration practices may appear modest next to the U.S., internationally Canada leans toward higher-than-average use of imprisonment relative to other Western and European nations.
Crime victimization surveys
Victimization Surveys in Canada
Why they matter:
Police-reported crime underestimates actual crime (many crimes go unreported).
Victimization surveys provide a clearer picture of the extent of crime.
Survey background:
Conducted by Statistics Canada since 1988.
Administered every 5 years to a large random sample of Canadians aged 15+.
Most recent data: 2019 General Social Survey: Canadians’ Safety (Victimization) (Cotter, 2021).
2019 survey findings:
19% of Canadians 15+ (≈ 6 million people) reported that they or someone in their household experienced at least one crime in the past 12 months.
Total of 8.3 million incidents of victimization reported.
Crime categories: sexual assault, robbery, physical assault, break & enter, motor vehicle theft/parts, theft of personal property, vandalism.
Violent vs. non-violent:
Non-violent incidents: 69%
Violent incidents: 33% (sexual assault, robbery, physical assault)
Key concerns highlighted:
Low reporting to police:
Only 3 in 10 incidents reported to police.
Sexual assault reporting rate extremely low: 6%.
High-risk groups for victimization:
Age: Young people most likely to self-report violent victimization; rates decline with age.
Gender: Women twice as likely as men to experience violent victimization (mostly sexual assault).
Sexual orientation: Bisexual Canadians 9x more likely than heterosexual Canadians to report violent victimization (largely sexual assault).
Indigenous Peoples:
Victimization rate: 177 per 1,000 (vs. 80 per 1,000 for non-Indigenous).
Homicide rate: 7x higher than non-Indigenous (2020 police data).
The Cost of Crime
Difficulty in calculation:
Crime has direct and indirect costs.
Impacts extend beyond the criminal justice system → victims, families, communities, and society.
Fraser Institute estimate (Easton et al., 2014):
Year studied: 1998.
Total cost of crime: $42.4 billion.
Direct costs (police, courts, corrections): $15.5 billion.
Corrections alone: $4.62 billion annually.
Koegl & Day (2019):
Tracked 386 young persons for 15 years (starting 1986).
Based on official convictions only.
Aggregate cost: $671 million total → about $1.74 million per person over 15 years.
Day & Koegl (2015):
Looked at costs by offending trajectories (age of onset & persistence).
Average aggregate cost per person: $5.86 million.
Cost variation:
Low persistence offenders: < $4 million.
High persistence offenders: > $16 million.
Key point: Long-term costs rise sharply with persistent offending.
Victimization survey connection (Cotter, 2021):
2019 survey: 19% of Canadians (≈ 6 million people/households) reported 8.3 million incidents in past year.
Each incident impacts:
Victim/survivor → property loss, trauma, fear of future crime.
Victim’s circle (family, friends) → emotional, financial, or safety impacts.
Perpetrator’s circle → family/children may face stigma, financial burden, social disadvantage if the offender is fined, on probation, or jailed.
Ripple effect of crime:
Crime harms more than the direct victim.
Consequences spread to families, communities, and broader society.
Key takeaway:
Crime is not just a criminal justice issue, but a public policy issue due to its massive financial, social, and psychological costs.
Persistent offending is especially expensive, highlighting the need for early intervention and prevention strategies.
Administration of Criminal Sanctions in Canada
Correctional Services in Canada
Jurisdiction split:
Provincial/Territorial responsibility:
Sentences less than 2 years.
Community sentences (fines, community service, probation).
Youth justice services → includes:
Pre-trial supervision.
Community and custody sentences.
Extrajudicial sanctions programs.
Federal responsibility:
Sentences of 2 years or more.
Incarceration in federal prisons.
Key takeaway:
Shorter sentences & youth cases → provincial/territorial.
Longer sentences (2+ years) → federal.
Provincial Jails vs. Federal Prisons
Provincial jails
Also serve as remand centres → people are held while awaiting trial.
Some convicted individuals may later be transferred to federal prisons.
This means that there are a wide variety of offences represented.
Federal prisons
Hold people sentenced to 2+ years.
Incarcerated population more likely to include:
People convicted of violent crimes.
People with serious or lengthy criminal histories
Parole violations & new crimes:
If someone convicted federally is on supervised release (like parole) and their parole is revoked, or they commit a new crime with a sentence under 2 years, they are still sent back to federal custody rather than provincial.
Sex crime offenders – Long-Term Offender designation:
Some individuals convicted of sex crimes may receive a sentence under 2 years.
However, they can also be designated a Long-Term Offender (LTO).
LTOs must undergo community supervision for up to 10 years after their release.
Supervision responsibility:
Even if the individual served time in a provincial jail, the community supervision is managed by federal parole officers once they are released.
New Brunswick example:
In some provinces, like New Brunswick, there are arrangements called exchange of service agreements.
These agreements allow federal corrections (Correctional Service Canada, or CSC) to manage provincially sentenced individuals.
This can include handling custody, rehabilitation programming, or supervision, even though the person is technically under provincial sentencing jurisdiction.
Rationale: It helps streamline resources and ensures consistent correctional practices in places where provinces may not have as many facilities or staff.
Other areas in Canada:
Conversely, in other regions, federal corrections rely on provincial resources.
A common example is halfway house bed space (transitional housing for offenders on parole or conditional release).
Here, instead of CSC maintaining its own halfway houses everywhere, they partner with provincial facilities or community-based organizations to ensure offenders have a place for gradual reintegration into society.
Correctional Facilities in Canada
Canada operates close to 150 correctional facilities nationwide.
These facilities serve a wide range of purposes and populations:
Jails → typically for short sentences (under 2 years), or for holding those awaiting trial.
Remand centres → for individuals awaiting trial or sentencing (not yet convicted).
Correctional centres → for provincially sentenced offenders serving less than 2 years.
Federal prisons (penitentiaries) → for those sentenced to 2 years or more, operated by CSC.
Indigenous healing lodges → unique facilities that incorporate Indigenous cultural practices, spirituality, and traditions as part of the correctional process. These focus on healing, reconciliation, and culturally relevant rehabilitation.
Specialized Facilities
Some facilities are specifically designed for certain groups:
Youth facilities: Focus on rehabilitation, education, skills training, and reintegration, with programs tailored to young offenders.
Women’s facilities: Provide gender-responsive programming, such as trauma-informed care, parenting programs, and mental health supports, recognizing that women often face different pathways to offending than men.
Correctional Staff and Professionals in Canada
Correctional Staff
Present in both federal and provincial/territorial systems.
Responsible for security, supervision, and day-to-day management of incarcerated individuals.
Roles include correctional officers, supervisors, and administrators who ensure safety and order within facilities.
Parole Officers
Also present in both federal and provincial systems.
Oversee individuals serving conditional sentences, probation, or parole.
Monitor compliance with release conditions, provide guidance, and act as a link between offenders and community supports.
Social Workers
More common in provincial facilities.
Work with individuals serving shorter sentences or under community supervision.
Provide counseling, connect offenders to housing, employment, or addiction services, and support reintegration.
Emphasis is often on immediate needs and short-term rehabilitation.
Psychologists
Present in both federal and provincial systems.
Provide mental health assessments, therapy, crisis intervention, and treatment for disorders such as PTSD, depression, or substance abuse.
May also assess risk factors related to reoffending and contribute to case management planning.
Licensing & Certification
Licensing is the responsibility of each province.
Professionals such as social workers and psychologists must meet the provincial certification standards where they practice.
Example: A psychologist licensed in Ontario cannot automatically practice in Alberta without meeting Alberta’s requirements.
This creates variation across Canada in terms of training, specialization, and service delivery.
General Overview
Population supervised:
~13,720 incarcerated individuals.
~9,382 individuals under community supervision (e.g., parole).
Sentences: 25% of incarcerated people are serving life or indeterminate sentences.
Budget & Costs
Annual budget (2018/2019): $2.4 billion.
Cost per person:
$120,529 annually to incarcerate one person.
$32,037 annually to supervise one person in the community.
Staffing
Total staff employed: 17,238.
Workforce distribution: 77% work inside institutions.
Indigenous Representation
Indigenous women: Incarcerated population increased 42.3% (from 196 in 2010/2011 to 279 in 2019/2020).
Indigenous men: Increased 28.6% (from 2,997 in 2010/2011 to 3,855 in 2019/2020).
Security & Escapes
2019/2020: 10 escape incidents involving 12 incarcerated people.
All escapees were recaptured.
Demographics (2019/2020)
Racial composition of incarcerated population:
54% White
26% Indigenous
8% Black
6% Asian
1% Hispanic
5% Other / Unknown
Offences
72% of CSC population (custody + community): Serving a sentence for violent crime(s).
Careers in Correctional Psychology
Correction officer (blended to reflect both provincial and federal corrections)
Notes – Mary’s Story: Blended Role in Corrections
Main Point
Mary’s experience highlights that correctional work is a blended position: balancing security (custody/control) with rehabilitation (support/interaction).
This dual role is common across both federal and provincial corrections.
Security Role
Duties include opening locked doors, conducting cell searches, monitoring passes, and controlling inmate movement.
Working in control posts emphasizes the safety and order side of corrections.
Shift work and rotation ensure consistent security coverage.
Rehabilitative/Support Role
Mary values talking with incarcerated individuals, seeing them as people rather than just offenders.
Draws on her background with the John Howard Society (counselling skills).
Her interest in becoming a parole officer shows her orientation toward reintegration and support.
Daily interactions in unit posts allow relationship building and direct influence on inmate well-being.
Professional Development
Learn that correctional work requires more than presence and security—communication and writing/reporting skills are essential.
Gains broad appreciation of how the prison functions by working different posts.
Recognized correctional officers play a key role in bridging security with rehabilitation goals.
Takeaway
Mary’s story shows that correctional officers are not just “guards.”
Their work combines custodial responsibilities with rehabilitative opportunities, reflecting the blended nature of correctional work across Canada’s federal and provincial systems.
Parole Officer (Federal institutional)
Case Study: Jamal – Federal Parole Officer
Background
48 years old, over 20 years of experience as a federal parole officer.
Witnessed significant changes in corrections technology, population, and procedures.
Technology & Work Process
Computers now track all interactions and caseload information.
Improves efficiency and ensures deadlines are met.
Concern: technology may reduce face-to-face counselling time.
Correctional programs can be delivered by other staff to supplement counselling.
Responsibilities
Meet regularly with everyone on his caseload to monitor prison adjustment.
Follow detailed procedures to comply with legal requirements and use complex risk assessment instruments.
Prepare incarcerated individuals for release and determine suitability for transfer to lower-security facilities.
Population Changes
Caseload now includes individuals who are:
Older on average
Have more serious criminal histories
Have more serious mental health concerns
These factors increase the challenge of preparing individuals for reintegration.
Job Satisfaction & Challenges
Enjoys making a positive difference for those willing to change.
Opportunities to work on special assignments add variety and interest.
Faces challenges such as being yelled at or sworn at, but still finds the career rewarding.
Key Takeaways
Jamal’s story highlights the dual nature of parole work: monitoring security and risk while supporting rehabilitation and reintegration.
Technology improves efficiency but can limit direct interaction.
Increasing complexity of populations requires parole officers to adapt their skills continually.
Probation Officer (Similar to a federal parol officer in the community)
Case Study: Enola – Probation Officer (Community-Based)
Background
32 years old; previously a substitute teacher for five years.
Volunteered at a minimum-security prison before pursuing probation work.
Transitioned to probation to focus on supporting justice-impacted individuals in the community.
Role & Responsibilities
Balances rehabilitation with supervision: ensures structure while supporting clients’ growth.
Varied workdays include:
Meeting clients in the office or in community spaces (e.g., coffee shops).
Interviewing employers and family for presentence reports.
Providing recommendations in court on probation suitability.
Focuses on helping clients understand they have choices and are accountable for actions.
Challenges
Disappointments when clients reoffend despite her efforts.
Emotional difficulty in court when recommending imprisonment to a client in front of family.
Job Satisfaction
Enjoys the variety and community connection in her work.
Emphasizes supportive relationships as key to successful supervision.
Finds fulfillment in helping justice-impacted people make better choices.
Key Takeaways
Community-based probation work focuses on reintegration and rehabilitation while maintaining supervision and accountability.
The job requires flexibility, relationship-building, and communication skills.
Success is measured not only by compliance but by client growth and positive life changes.
Psychologist
Case Study: Mariko – Correctional Psychologist (Institutional)
Background
35 years old; works in a medium-security men’s prison.
Completed clinical psychology degree at University of Saskatchewan.
Completed placements at Regional Psychiatric Centre, Saskatoon: risk assessments, group treatment, research under supervision.
Longstanding interest in corrections: volunteered with Elizabeth Fry Society; motivated by desire to help justice-impacted individuals.
Role & Responsibilities
Conducts risk assessments: evaluates likelihood of reoffending.
Provides psychological support and group treatment to incarcerated individuals.
Uses assessments as a starting point for personal change, not just administrative tasks.
Pursues research on crime desistance and rehabilitation, integrating findings into practice.
Perspective & Approach
Believes incarcerated individuals can and want to change, though change is challenging.
Emphasizes community reintegration: understanding and addressing life areas that affect recidivism.
Views her role as a bridge between psychological assessment, treatment, and research.
Key Takeaways
Correctional psychologists combine assessment, treatment, and research.
Psychological work in corrections is not just about risk categorization, but about facilitating rehabilitation and supporting desistance from crime.
Effective correctional psychology requires positivity, belief in change, and long-term planning for client reintegration.
Professor
Case Study: Kevin – Assistant Professor (Forensic Psychology)
Background
30 years old; recently hired as Assistant Professor in Psychology at a Canadian university.
Expertise: people who commit sexual offenses, primarily males.
Focuses on theory-based research, not clinical practice.
Experience in prisons and forensic hospitals conducting research.
Expert in risk assessments (static and dynamic) and phallometrics.
Role & Responsibilities
Teaches forensic psychology courses, aiming to engage students and inspire interest in the field.
Prepares manuscripts, grant applications, and manages research logistics (e.g., equipment, prison access).
Expands university forensic psychology program by sharing expertise and mentoring students.
Perspective & Approach
Values making material engaging and relevant, not just informational.
Recognizes that not all undergraduates will pursue graduate studies but emphasizes passion and inspiration for the field.
Balances teaching, research, and funding responsibilities, understanding that research continuation depends on grants.
Finds the workload challenging but rewarding and motivating.
Key Takeaways
Forensic psychology in academia is primarily research- and theory-driven, with limited direct clinical interaction.
Effective teaching requires engagement, mentorship, and bridging theory with practical applications.
Research in forensic psychology often involves access to sensitive populations and significant preparation and funding challenges.
General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL) Perspective
Source: Bonta & Andrews, 2017
This is a prominent psychologically grounded explanation of criminal conduct.
Overview:
Psychologically grounded theory explaining criminal behaviour.
Criminal behaviour results from an interaction of personal and situational factors.
Key Factors Influencing Criminal Behaviour:
Immediate Situation:
Presence of temptations, facilitators, inhibitors, or stressors that make crime more or less likely.
Individual Attitudes:
Beliefs and attitudes that support or condone criminal conduct.
Criminal History:
Previous criminal behaviour increases the likelihood of future offending.
Costs vs. Rewards:
Perceived benefits of crime compared to potential consequences.
Social Supports:
Influence of peers, family, or other social networks that encourage or enable criminal behaviour.
GPCSL Perspective – Expanded Factors
Source: Bonta & Andrews, 2017
Overview:
Integrative, situational model of criminal behaviour.
Recognizes both historical and immediate influences on criminal decision-making.
Aligns with a learning theory of crime: behaviour is shaped by past experiences and current context.
Key Contributions to Criminal Behaviour:
Community Factors:
Family of origin
Socio-economic environment
Interpersonal Influences:
Family and child relationships
Childhood attachment, neglect, abuse
Ties to peers or others who commit crime
Personal Factors:
Early conduct problems
Biological factors: temperament, verbal intelligence, gender, age
Cognitions (thought patterns, beliefs, attitudes)
Consequences:
Whether criminal behaviour is rewarded or punished, shaping future behaviour
Key Point:
GPCSL is situational and historical, showing how past experiences and present circumstances interact to influence criminal decisions.
Methodology
Interpreting Contradictory Research: Meta-Analysis
Problem:
Research on crime and corrections often shows contradictory findings.
Solution – Meta-Analysis:
Statistical technique that combines results from many individual studies.
Produces one averaged effect size across studies → a clearer overall conclusion.
Important Detail:
Not just a simple/unweighted average.
Instead, it uses a weighted average:
Larger, higher-quality studies are given more weight.
Smaller, less reliable studies are given less weight.
Purpose:
Helps make sense of large, diverse research bodies by showing the overall trend/effect.
Effect Sizes
Definition:
Effect sizes measure the magnitude of a difference or the strength of a relationship between variables.
Why Important:
T-tests and F-tests (ANOVA) indicate whether differences are statistically significant, but do not show how large or meaningful the differences are.
Effect sizes provide this magnitude information.
Additional Info:
Effect sizes can also be tested for statistical significance, giving a fuller understanding of the results.
Effect Sizes: Choosing the Right One
Key Point:
The best effect size depends on the research question and the type of variables.
1. Two dichotomous variables (e.g., treatment vs. no treatment on recidivism):
Phi correlation
Odds ratio
2. One continuous and one dichotomous variable (e.g., risk assessment scores and recidivism):
Area under the curve (AUC) – from ROC analysis
Cohen’s d
Correlation
Coefficient from logistic regression
Considerations:
Each statistic has advantages and limitations.
Correlations are robust when recidivism base rates are ~50% but can be unreliable for very low or very high base rates.
For low-base-rate research, statistical adjustments for correlations are recommended.
Meta-Analysis: Why It’s Useful
Purpose:
Synthesizes a large body of research into one aggregated effect size.
Provides a quantitative summary of findings.
Key Benefits:
Comparison across studies:
Different studies often use different statistics (e.g., ROC, Cohen’s d).
Meta-analysis converts these measures into a common effect size for direct comparison.
Combining diverse studies:
Allows studies using different statistical methods to be aggregated into a single analysis.
Takeaway:
Meta-analysis provides a standardized and comprehensive way to interpret a large and diverse set of research findings.
Limitations of Meta-Analysis
1. Publication Bias:
Aggregating only published studies can be misleading.
Studies with significant effect sizes are more likely to be published.
Solution: Include unpublished studies to reduce bias.
2. Quality of Individual Studies:
Conclusions are only as strong as the studies included.
Poor-quality studies (e.g., low validity, systematic biases) weaken results.
Aggregating many poor-quality studies can lead to unreliable conclusions.
3. Addressing Study Quality:
Code studies based on methodological quality.
Test if effect sizes vary by study quality.
Example: Hanson et al. (2009) found smaller effect sizes in higher-quality studies on treatment for sexual offenders.
Key Takeaway:
Despite limitations, meta-analysis is an effective and widely accepted method for synthesizing research.
Still considered the gold standard for summarizing evidence in a given area.
Measuring Predictive Accuracy
Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Analysis
Purpose:
Measures the accuracy of risk assessments.
Evaluates true positives (correctly predicted events) versus false positives (incorrectly predicted events) across all possible decision thresholds.
How it Works:
For each cut-off score:
X-axis: False positive rate
Y-axis: True positive rate
Plot these points to create a curve.
Area Under the Curve (AUC):
Represents overall predictive accuracy.
Higher AUC → better accuracy.
Advantages:
Less affected by decision thresholds.
Less sensitive to low or high base rates compared to simple correlations.
Significance:
Standard method for comparing risk assessment tools in forensic and correctional psychology.
Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Analysis and AUC
Purpose:
Measures the accuracy of risk assessments.
Evaluates true positives vs. false positives across all decision thresholds.
How it Works:
For each cut-off score:
X-axis: False positive rate
Y-axis: True positive rate
Plot these points to create a ROC curve.
Area Under the Curve (AUC):
Represents overall predictive accuracy.
Range:
0.50 → chance-level accuracy
1.00 → perfect accuracy
Interpretation:
Example: AUC = 0.80 → 80% of the time, a randomly selected recidivist scores higher than a randomly selected non-recidivist.
AUC > 0.80 → considered very good predictive accuracy.
Can be converted to Cohen’s d using a reference table (Rice & Harris, 2005).
Advantages:
Less influenced by decision thresholds and base rates than correlations.
Standard method for comparing risk assessment tools across studies.
Correlates, Risk Factors, Causal Factors and Crime
Correctional Psychology Research Designs: Cross-Sectional / Correlational
Purpose:
Study relationships between variables in correctional populations.
Example:
Researcher interviews incarcerated women and finds high rates of depression.
Interpretation Challenges:
Direction of causality unknown:
Depression may have contributed to criminal behaviour.
Depression may result from imprisonment (e.g., stigma, isolation, loss of freedom).
Because causality cannot be established, depression is considered a correlate of crime rather than a confirmed cause.
A correlate of crime: This is when we have found an association between that variable and criminal behaviour, but we cannot tell which came first.
Key Takeaway:
Cross-sectional/correlational designs can identify associations but cannot determine causation.
Correlates vs. Risk Factors
Correlate of crime:
Two variables are related, but causal order is unknown.
Example: Depression and incarceration—don’t know which came first.
Risk factor for crime:
Variable precedes the criminal behaviour.
Must show a significant positive relationship with future crime.
Example: Depression measured before offending predicts later criminal behaviour.
Research design:
Cross-sectional/correlational → identifies correlates only.
Longitudinal → needed to identify risk factors (shows temporal order).
Key point: Longitudinal studies allow stronger inferences about causality.
Risk Factors vs. Causal Factors
Risk factor: Predicts a future event but does not necessarily cause it.
Example: Umbrella usage on a cloudy day does not cause rain.
Causality: Requires more complex research designs to determine.
Gold standard: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are widely accepted for assessing causality.
Randomized controlled designs: A research design used to determine causality by randomly assigning participants to different conditions or groups.
To test whether an intervention or factor actually causes a change in an outcome.
Expert guidance: Kraemer et al. (1997) discuss methodological approaches to strengthen causal conclusions.
Key point: Prediction ≠ causation. A variable can indicate increased risk without being a causal factor.
Central Eight Risk/Need Factors
The Central Eight are a set of factors shown to predict criminal behavior and recidivism. They include one historical or static risk factor—criminal history—and seven dynamic risk factors, often called criminogenic needs.
Criminal history refers to past offenses, arrests, or convictions. It is static, meaning it cannot be changed, but it remains one of the strongest predictors of future offending.
Dynamic risk factors are aspects of a person’s life that can change over time and can be targeted in interventions to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. These factors are linked to the individual’s attitudes, behaviors, and social environment.
A series of meta-analyses (including Olver et al., 2014) confirm that the Central Eight collectively have a strong ability to predict future criminal behavior. Each individual factor also contributes meaningfully to predicting general recidivism.
The Central Eight are embedded in the General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL) model, which emphasizes the influence of situational, personal, and social factors on criminal behavior.
Key takeaway: Compared to other potential predictors of crime, the Central Eight consistently yield the strongest effect sizes, making them highly important for risk assessment, rehabilitation planning, and targeted interventions.
Understanding these factors allows correctional professionals to identify areas of need, develop individualized intervention plans, and ultimately reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
Non-Criminogenic Needs and Minor Risk Factors
Research over the last 30 years, including numerous meta-analyses, shows that certain variables have little or no predictive value for future criminal behavior. These variables include:
Personal or emotional distress
Low self-esteem
Major mental disorders (e.g., anxiety, depression, schizophrenia)
Physical health
Fear of official punishment
Low intelligence
Socioeconomic status of origin
Seriousness of the current offense
These factors are classified as minor risk factors or non-criminogenic needs because, although they may affect an individual’s well-being, they do not strongly influence the likelihood of reoffending.
Like dynamic risk factors, non-criminogenic needs are changeable, meaning they can improve with treatment or intervention, but changes in these areas do not necessarily reduce criminal behavior.
Some scholars argue that the line between criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs is not always clear-cut. For example, certain emotional or personal issues could indirectly affect criminal behavior or interact with other risk factors, making it difficult to disentangle their true impact (Van Voorhis, 2012).
Assessment and Treatment Approaches
Correctional Psychology and Risk Assessment
The primary goal of correctional psychology is to understand criminal behaviour and reduce future offending.
To achieve this, assessment and treatment must focus on the factors most strongly predictive of criminal conduct. Addressing these factors effectively increases the likelihood of successful rehabilitation.
A major part of correctional practice involves assessing a justice-impacted person’s risk to re-offend, which is formally referred to as risk assessment.
Numerous risk assessment tools have been developed, each using different methods for combining and weighting risk factors. Despite methodological differences, most tools generally include:
Static risk factors: Historical, unchangeable factors such as criminal history, age at first offense, or prior incarcerations.
Dynamic risk factors (criminogenic needs): Changeable factors such as substance abuse, antisocial attitudes, or employment instability that can be targeted in treatment.
More recently, risk assessments have begun to incorporate protective factors, which are traits or circumstances that reduce the likelihood of reoffending, such as strong family support, stable employment, or positive peer networks.
Protective Factors
Strength-Based Approaches in Correctional Psychology
The term strength-based can have different interpretations, but a core aspect is the identification and utilization of protective factors.
Protective factors are positive attributes or resources that a person possesses, which can help reduce the likelihood of reoffending, even when risk factors are present.
Protective factors can be internal or external:
Internal protective factors: Personal traits or abilities, such as high intelligence, emotional regulation, resilience, or motivation to change.
External protective factors: Positive environmental influences, such as supportive family members, prosocial peers, stable employment, or engagement in community programs.
In theory, incorporating protective factors into risk assessment and intervention planning allows correctional staff to capitalize on a person’s strengths, rather than focusing solely on deficits or risks.
This approach aligns with modern rehabilitation practices that emphasize positive development and the capacity for change, not just the reduction of risk.
Comprehensive Assessments in Correctional Psychology
Purpose: To evaluate not only criminogenic needs (factors that predict reoffending) but also non-criminogenic needs—those factors that may influence overall well-being but have minimal direct impact on criminal behavior.
Assessments also identify facilitators and barriers to treatment success, which are critical for planning effective interventions and supporting successful reintegration into the community.
These additional factors are called specific responsivity factors, and they guide how interventions should be tailored to the individual.
Examples include learning style, cognitive abilities, mental health challenges, motivation, language skills, or cultural background.
By addressing these factors, correctional professionals can maximize treatment engagement and outcomes, ensuring programs are suited to the individual’s needs and abilities.
This approach ensures that rehabilitation is personalized and evidence-based, increasing the likelihood of long-term desistance from crime.
Effective Correctional Assessment
Key Point: Assessment is the foundation of effective corrections. Without identifying and measuring risk factors, it is impossible to develop interventions that meaningfully reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
Scholars have devoted extensive research to identifying evidence-based methods to reduce recidivism.
Modern correctional practices increasingly focus on tailoring interventions to specific subgroups, recognizing that risk factors and effective strategies may differ across populations.
For example, interventions may be adapted for women, whose pathways into crime often differ from men.
Specialized programs exist for people convicted of specific crime types, such as sex offenses, reflecting the unique risk factors and treatment needs associated with these offenses.
Overall, effective assessment guides the creation of individualized, evidence-based correctional plans, maximizing the potential for rehabilitation and successful reintegration into the community.
Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model
Overview: One of the most effective rehabilitation frameworks in the Western world, the RNR model was developed in Canada and first formally described in 1990 by Dr. Don Andrews and colleagues (Andrews et al., 1990).
Purpose: The model provides a structured, evidence-based approach to reducing recidivism by tailoring intervention and supervision to individual offenders.
Three Core Principles
Risk Principle
Intervention intensity should match the offender’s risk level.
Higher-risk individuals receive more program hours and closer community supervision.
Lower-risk individuals require minimal intervention to avoid disrupting protective factors.
Need Principle
Focus on criminogenic needs—dynamic risk factors strongly linked to criminal behavior.
Targeting these needs increases the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs.
Responsivity Principle
General Responsivity: Use evidence-based methods, usually Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), delivered in an empathic, firm, and fair manner.
Specific Responsivity: Tailor interventions to individual differences (e.g., gender, race, culture, personality, age).
Recognizes that individualized treatment improves engagement and outcomes.
Significance:
Provides a research-backed framework to reduce recidivism.
Ensures that interventions are not “one-size-fits-all” but adapted to risk, need, and learning style, maximizing effectiveness.
Understanding Ordinary Crime and Criminal Behavior
Most offenders are “ordinary people”:
Contrary to fascination with extreme or serial crimes, the majority of individuals who commit crimes have common, everyday problems.
Examples include poor self-regulation, substance abuse, unemployment, or associating with peers involved in crime.
Factors influencing criminal decisions:
Disinhibition: Difficulty controlling impulses or delaying gratification.
Failure to consider consequences: Short-term gains are prioritized over long-term risks.
Peer influence: Criminal behavior is supported or encouraged by friends or social circles.
Attitudes supportive of crime: Beliefs and norms that make offending seem acceptable.
Role of prosocial support:
Increasing support for positive, prosocial behavior reduces criminal decisions and actions.
Interventions that strengthen prosocial supports (family, community programs, education, employment) help reduce offending.