Reconstructing the Risk–Need–Responsivity model : a theoretical elaboration and evaluation

In this paper, we examine the theoretical strengths and weaknesses of the Risk–Need–Responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation. We briefly discuss the nature of rehabilitation theories and their core components and then review the three source theories associated with the RNR Model. Following this we set out to reconstruct the RNR model in light of this analysis, essentially arguing that there are at least three components to any rehabilitation theory: (a) primary aims, values and principles; (b) etiological and methodological assumptions; and (c) practice implications. We then evaluate the theoretical and empirical adequacy of the RNR model. Finally, we conclude the paper with a few comments on the policy, research, and clinical implications of our evaluation (and reconstruction) of this important rehabilitation model.

Crime-prevention jurisprudence? A response to Andrews and Dowden

Recently Andrews and Dowden (2007) published an article proposing that both offender and victim well-being could be enhanced by utilizing the risk–need–responsivity model to guide the legal and court systems in crime prevention (rather than therapy). Consequently, crime-prevention jurisprudence (defined as a law-and-justice objective reflecting the language of personality and social psychology) was proposed as an alternative to therapeutic jurisprudence (defined as a mental-health objective reflecting the clinical language of forensic mental health). The authors erroneously claim that therapeutic jurisprudence is a mental-health concept whose aim is to provide therapy that improves well-being in offenders rather than to demonstrate concern for victims. In fact, therapeutic jurisprudence is a legal concept that utilizes social-science knowledge to highlight the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic impacts of the law, legal procedures, and legal roles on all individuals, including victims. This article will respond to Andrews and Dowden by challenging three assumptions they make regarding the role of therapeutic jurisprudence. This response concludes that the focus of offender rehabilitation should be on enhancing community protection by balancing offender rights and victim rights. Therapeutic jurisprudence already provides such a framework and, therefore, the promise of crime-prevention jurisprudence fails to add value.