Postcards from the Id

Depressing News On The Juvenile Rehabilitation Front

This research is simply depressing.  Simply put, the more help a juvenile receives from the justice system, the more likely they will later engage in crime as adults (by a seven-fold increase).  From the article:

"The more intense the help given by the juvenile justice system, the greater was its negative impact," Dr. Tremblay stresses. "Our findings take on even greater importance given that the juvenile justice system in the province of Quebec has the reputation of being among the best. Most countries spend considerable financial resources to fund programs and institutions that group deviant youths together in order to help them. The problem is that delinquent behavior is contagious, especially among adolescents. Putting deviant adolescents together creates a culture of deviance, which increases the likelihood of continued criminal behavior."

I have no doubt that placing these adolescents together creates a “culture of deviance,” and as a result they increase their maladaptive patterns.  A common criticism of prison is that guys come out worse than when they went in (often true, but not an automatic).  I do think, however, there may be other issues at play.  First off, budding psychopaths will use treatment programs as training for rigging the system - that is, they will learn all of the things they are supposed to say, do, etc. in order to convince others they are not as criminal as they actually are.  Some research has suggested, for example, that psychopathic sex offenders are more likely to re-offend following treatment, due to an increase in confidence in the belief they’ve fooled everyone. 

Another factor I’d love to look at would be the various intervention protocols.  I have no idea what the juvenile systems in Canada are doing in terms of treatment of incarcerated youth.  Depending on the types of therapies offered, I could easily see treatment being, at best, a waste of time.

A third consideration may not be simply being immersed in a “culture of deviancy,” but the lack of exposure to non-offending people.  True, most people gravitate towards others who are doing what they would like to do, but there certainly are examples of individuals who appeared down the wrong track, until they latched onto a person or group that offered a different path (I always think of Mike Tyson during his time with Cus D’amato, who seemed to be able to channel Tyson’s energies in a positive direction until he passed).  The presence of negative interpersonal relationships is not the same as the absence of positive relational opportunities; both areas would need to be examined.

Those are just a few of the possible additional explanations for what surely has to be an incredibly disappointing find.  As far as options, I’m not sure.  The article poses two choices - earlier interventions, and/or smaller groups.  Maybe...but I’d like the data to be examined more thoroughly, and compared with other studies, before we start spending even more money in an area where these results just suggested it was a waste.

Offender Therapy - Postulates and Key Terms - Interpersonal Intrusiveness

In an occasional yet ongoing series of posts on thetopic of offender therapy, I will now briefly discuss the characteristic of the lifestyle criminal as it relates to postulate #1 - Interpersonal Intrusiveness. Generally speaking, what this involves is a complete disregard for the rights, boundaries, and dignity of others. There is typically little in the way of compassion or empathy for others; rather, the world is viewed from the perspective of a pack animal, such as a wolf - there is a pecking order, and to the extent I can take what I want from you, I am entitled to do so.

This, according to Walters, is more of a learned criminal characteristic, in that people are not born this way. I’d submit, however, that to the extent this learned, the learning process may start quite early. The way Walters describes this, the lifestyle criminal engages in interpersonal intrusiveness in a deliberate manner. While a child may engage in all sorts of disturbing behaviors, including ones that are interpersonally intrusive, this is generally not done by children with the same type of deliberate intent as the adult. However, over time, the individual’s cognitions with respect to interpersonal interactions are shaped by these previous choices (and the resulting consequences), where, as an adult, they now engage in these actions willingly.

Often, the type of interpersonal intrusiveness we are talking about here is violent and aggressive. Of course, this is the case in terms of the actual offending behavior, but it will also be evident in less-than-illegal behavior as well. For a behavior to rise to the level of intrusive, one must consider whether the behavior violates the rights and dignity of others. Offenses can be considered on a continuum in this manner - crimes like murder and rape are on a farther end of this scale than, say, shoplifting. In addition, the manner in which the crimes are carried out will give us a fuller picture of just how intrusive a person’s actions are. As an example, a fight with a stranger at a bar, following excessive drinking a a few words being exchanged might be considered less intrusive than a husband physically assaulting his wife in a similar manner, particularly if done in front of the kids, and with other assorted verbal comments meant to demean the wife added.

Another form of intrusiveness that is not overtly hostile, but nonetheless a violation of others, is the parasitic lifestyle. Often seen among offenders, this is an interpersonal style whereby the offender will enter into relationships by saying or doing whatever is necessary in order to form the relationship, then basically sponge off the person in order to have to engage in activities like, say, getting a job. They will remain in these relationships as long as possible, continuing to make promises, excuse, etc. to put of an ultimatum as long as possible. If the other person does in fact put down their foot, they will simply pick up and look for a new “host.” Now, not all “parasites” are lifestyle criminals, but many lifestyle criminals are parasites. Particularly on a psychopathic level, these individuals will make the most significant promises possible, even marry people, with no intention of actually following through on the commitments most people recognize are implicit in the arrangement.

The next key aspect associated with postulate #1 will be social rule breaking, which I will hopefully address sooner rather than later!

Offender Therapy - Postulates and Key Terms - Irresponsibility

As promised, here is the post on the first element of postulate one, as it relates to the lifestyle offender - irresponsibility.  In this previous post on offender therapy, I discussed Postulate One of understanding the “lifestyle Criminal,” as discussed by Glenn Walters. In the first postulate, Walters cites four main areas that are the key to understanding the lifestyle criminal. Number one: A global sense of irresponsibility.

As Walters points out, we’ve all been irresponsible at times. We are sometimes late for work, or don’t go and exercise like we planned, or we forget to have our kids brush their teeth before bed (although in my case, my kids will remind me, and do so in such a way as to ask, “Why, how can we possibly get into bed? We haven’t brushed our teeth. Our teeth!”). To err, after all, is human (I think some guy said that once). Anyway, people aren’t 100% responsible.

For lifestyle criminals, on the other hand, irresponsibility is a lifetime pattern. In virtually every area of life, the common thread is to fail to live up to obligations, be it finances, health, marriage, kids, school, work, friends, aor anything else. Just as important, the lack of responsibility is compounded by the individual’s lack of accountability for their actions, so therefore there is never any progress towards greater responsibility. Nope, the lifestyle criminal consistently neglects their obligations to others, including social, financial, moral, or what have you. The irresponsibility is both global and chronic, unlike other individuals who may have an area of weakness, but also demonstrate adequate (or better) responsibility in other areas. Further, their chronic unwillingness to live up to their responsibilities is an ever-present source or aggravation to those who depend on them. It is also this characteristic that makes the lifestyle criminal so unpredictable, their life so chaotic - you just can’t count on them, for anything.

Offender Therapy - Postulates and Key Terms - Self-Indulgence

In reviewing my posting history, and particularly some of the threads/themes I’ve posted about on multiple occasions, I’ve noticed that there have been a couple of topics where I’ve either stated I wanted to post more frequently, or at least intended to post more frequently. One such area is the treatment of criminal behavior. I made several posts on this topic early on, but got away from it when I posted rather frequently and issues related to competency to stand trial. This is a topic I want to get back to, however intermittently. One thing I’m finding is that, for me, intermittent posts on multiple topics is more interesting that a more intensive focus on just one. Over time, I will still build a series of posts on a number of topics that I find interesting and relevant - he will simply take more time to build a substantial body of writing on any one topic.

With that, let me try to pick up where I left off in my discussion of treating criminal behavior. In the previous posts on offender therapy (a looooooong time ago), I discussed Postulate One of understanding the “Lifestyle Criminal,” as discussed by Glenn Walters. From Walters’ book:

Postulate #1 - Crime can be understood as a lifestyle characterized by a global sense of irresponsibility, self-indulgent interests, an intrusive approach to interpersonal relationships, and chronic violation of societal rules, laws, and mores.

In this first postulate, Walters cites four main areas that are the key to understanding the lifestyle criminal. The first one was: “A global sense of irresponsibility,” which I have written, but still need to post (it's complicated - I thought I had posted it, but I haven't; now I have to get it). The second main area identified by Walters is: Self-Indulgence. Walters’ notes in his book that we are all born with a certain irresponsibility, as well as a tendency to be self-indulgent. Pleasure is a primary motivation for children. However, by various means of socialization (e.g. parenting, schooling, etc.) we learn, over time, that in order to achieve long-term goals we must often delay short term gratification. However, the lifestyle criminal does not learn this lesson to any reasonable degree; certainly not to a degree necessary for even minimal adaptive, functional behavior as an adult. The lifestyle criminal will consistently displayed behaviors resulting from impulsivity, pleasure-seeking urges, short term thinking, and a general self-indulgence. One common example of this is the rampant in substance abuse evident in a great majority of lifestyle criminals. More broadly, these individuals are generally unconcerned with consequences and resulting from such behaviors, if the consider the consequences at all. Decisions related to finances, work, relationships, etc., will often be destructive in the long-term for these individuals, but for these individuals, this is significantly less important than their narrow focus on their own personal “here-and-now.” Unfortunately, their lack of consideration of the long-term ramifications of their behaviors often harms others in their wake.

One concept I’ve noted again and again, in a variety of different treatments settings, is just how important the ability to delay gratification is. Obviously, this is an issue addressed repeatedly when working with offenders. However, I’ve seen this issue come up in all sorts of different contexts that are unrelated to criminal behavior. As I noted in many previous posts, I’m a big believer in balance when it comes to various mental health issues - leaning too much in one direction or the other on any number of issues that can be viewed as on a continuum, will result in less than optimal functioning. Only considering the long-term ramifications of every single action one takes would lead to an extremely boring life; I do believe in “living in the moment.” However, that does not mean one should throw caution to the winds and not ever consider any ramifications of one’s behavior. Living in the moment does not have to come at the expense of one’s future - this is a less than many people struggle with, not just offenders. In particular, the earlier a child can learn how to stave off a short term urge for a longer-term payoff, the more successful that child will be in general. This isn’t the easiest lesson to learn, but its one of the most important. Even indirectly, therapy is often incorporating the concept of delaying gratification as the path to self-improvement: call your sponsor instead of having a drink; count to 10 instead of punching that guy; don’t eat that chocolate until you’ve worked out. Easy wisdom in theory, but often therapy involves helping people figure out strategies to put into practice these seemingly obvious truisms. With offenders, there’s simply a lot more work to do with respect to this concept.

Using Wilderness Experiences As a Catalyst for Change in Young Offenders

This article summarizes an effort in England to treat youthful offenders through the use of outdoor and wilderness experiences. The youths participated in two outdoor ventures, one on land and one involving sailing. According to the program developer’s, the change in the behavior and attitudes of the adolescence was obvious, with improved social and behavioral functioning across the board. In addition, the authors report the changes were documented through the use of self-report measures administered before and after the outdoor experiences. From the article:

The five day sailing trip was included as sailing is a physical activity that relies on a crew working as a team. Participating in this contributed to an improved self-esteem, enhanced mood and a greater connectedness to nature. However, the biggest contrast to the first Isle of Mull experience was behaviour. After a challenging time on the residential and walking trail programme, only two incidents of refusing to cooperate were observed whilst sailing and there were no incidents of verbal attacks, physical violence or running away. There were minimal arguments and the group functioned cohesively as a team. They also articulated this change themselves on many occasions.

The researchers monitored the young people’s psychological health before and after the two wilderness trips, as well as during the months in between. At the outset behaviour was described as disruptive, disrespectful and undisciplined. However, as the programme progressed, the frequency of negative events reduced, criminal activity and substance abuse declined and the young people displayed less anti-social behaviour.

The article does note some of the reported benefits regressed once the adolescents returned to their regular environments. However, they also point out that the levels did not return all the way to their baseline, suggesting some degree of lasting improvement.

It’s difficult to make out what impact, if any (long-term), these efforts actually have on at-risk adolescents. I certainly do not think there are any negative aspects to this sort of intervention, aside from economic considerations. On the other hand, self-report measures are not very useful in assessing individuals who have a history of conduct- related problems. In addition, even assuming the conduct of the participants significantly improved during the outdoor experiences, returning an adolescent to the environment in which they developed their conduct-related problems will obviously negate most of the experiential benefits of having participated in such a program. This would be true primarily for those adolescents with conduct problems that are not to result of budding psychopathy; for most budding psychopaths, I wouldn’t expect this to the program to have any impact at all, aside from their having the opportunity to learn how to manipulate even better.

On the flip side, providing adolescents from impoverished backgrounds certain experiences such as those in this type of program may lead to some skill development. In addition, it may prove motivational for those capable of channeling their energies in a different direction; a glimpse of what life could be like with some effort and a little luck. If this program is to work at all, it does need to be focused on adolescents, if not children even younger; I doubt this experience would have anything more than a short term impact on most adults. Time for the fall back onto the “More research would be helpful” routine.

Offender Therapy - Postulates and Key Terms

In reviewing Glenn Walter's theory of the criminal lifestyle, there are a number of key ideas and definitions he uses to flesh out his concepts. In all, Walters has developed ten postulates that he uses to crystalize his thinking regarding the lifestyle criminal. All will be reviewed, the first in this post.

Postulate #1 - Crime can be understood as a lifestyle characterized by a global sense of irresponsibility, self-indulgent interests, an intrusive approach to interpersonal relationships, and chronic violation of societal rules, laws, and mores.

The most important point to be made about postulate #1 is that it is defined in lifestyle terms. This postulate (and theory) does not encompass all types of criminal activity (though again, it is useful to consider these issues on a continuum), but rather is directed towards those individuals for whom the above characteristics reflect their general life pattern. It is these individuals, small as their overall numbers may be, that are responsible for much of the crime worldwide. Their criminal behavior is not the result of momentary lapses in judgement, or situational stress, but rather a general pattern of living that is characterized by irresponsible, self-indulgent, intrusive, social rule-breaking behavior.

In fact, it is these four areas (irresponsibility, self-indulgence, interpersonal intrusiveness, and social rule-breaking) that are primary in terms of classifying an individual as a lifestyle criminal. Absent one or more of these areas, they do not fall completely within the definition of a lifestyle criminal. Again, simply because an individual does not meet the full criteria for what is called a lifestyle criminal does not mean they cannot be aided by efforts used to habilitate a lifestyle criminal (which will be the focus of later posts). However, the focus of this series will remain on individuals who meet the full criteria.

The next four posts will examine these four areas that define postulate number one. Next up: Irresponsibility.

Starting today, I plan on occasionally posting quotes that are relevant to particular areas I am covering on this blog. This will include quotes related to psychology, as well a the other interests. Since I have been posting a series on offender therapy, including a conceptualization of the lifestyle criminal, I thought I’d start with a quote from Stanton Samenow. To be sure, I don’t agree with everything Samenow writes, but he is one of the authors new psychologists (or students) are encouraged to read if they are planning to work with offenders, be it in corrections, outpatient groups, etc. Despite some differences of opinion regarding his writings, there is no doubt that reading Dr. Samenow is effective for an individual who is to begin working with offenders for the first time, regardless of the amount of overall clinical experience a clinician has. This is because working with an offender is fundamentally different, as I’ve stated previously. This is not to say that a clinician ought to adopt an “air of superiority” towards offenders, treat them more poorly than regular clients, etc. In fact it is, if anything, more important to consistently model appropriate, non-criminal, and effective interactions and behaviors with offenders than with any other group. Demonstrating that even in the face of a client base that regularly attempts to manipulate, deceive, and con the clinician, the clinician can address the behavior without judging the individual and respond appropriately is a powerful therapeutic intervention. It can even be pointed out directly: “How did I respond when you left out all of those convictions during your initial interview? That’s right, firmly but fairly. And that was intentional. So when your wife makes an honest mistake, that, let’s face it, isn’t all that big of a deal (have the client rate on a scale of 1 to 100), what might be a better way to respond than to call her a...” You get the idea.

So, you treat the offender client with respect, but you treat the offender client with an awareness and seeking out of efforts to think and act criminally that one simply does not do with general population clients. In my first practicum, an outpatient clinic for older adults, I was not consistently assessing my 68-year old female client, grandmother of four, presenting for depression associated with loss issues, for efforts to manipulate, deceive, justify, etc. No need. But this type of therapy does not prepare you for working with the lifestyle criminal. There is no benefit of the doubt with offenders - they need to prove, again and again, they are engaged in the process of change, not the other way around. They have forfeited any right to an expectation of good will regarding their intentions: in fact, an indication of insight (not that insight is necessary, a whole ‘nother post!) for an offender is that they grasp that they require regular assessment of their thinking for possible thinking errors, and demonstrate a willingness to submit their thinking and actions to this type of review.

Anyway, back to the original point of the post. Basically, even if he ain’t perfect, Samenow gets the basics right in terms of the mind set necessary to approach the antisocial offender. In an earlier post, I wrote about the first of the “Three Cs,” which is “Conditions.” Here is a brief quote from Samenow’s book Before It’s Too Late, addressing the role of environment in determining the behavior of the child who is displaying misconduct:

“What of the role of the environment in shaping behavior? A recognition that children make choices does not mean that parents or other environmental forces are totally without influence. While the individual makes the choice, the environment can inhibit or promote choices in a particular direction. For example, lack of parental supervision makes it easier for the child to get away with misconduct. If a parent is present, the child is more easily restrained and guided. But even the twenty-four-hour presence of a parent does not guarantee that a child will stay out of trouble because it is the child who still makes the ultimate choice.”

Now, as stated in the post regarding choices, childrens’ choices are often uninformed, and made without the requisite impulse control, sense of long-term consequences, etc., which is why they are addressed differently (whether legally, therapeutically, etc.). However, the importance of choice in this context cannot be overstated, especially as a learning experience for the child. And, if the child has been provided this opportunity to learn several times, and continues to choose misconduct, hopefully there will be an awareness of what path this child is choosing to go down.

Offender Therapy - The Three Cs - Cognitions

Cognitions are the third “C” in the conceptualization of the criminal lifestyle. Specifically, cognitions refer to the thinking style that we develop in response to the early conditions we experience, or are exposed to, as well as the choices we make in relation to these conditions. Cognitions are, fundamentally, the foundation of all behavior, criminal or noncriminal (at least if you are a cognitive therapist!). Therefore, it is important to view how individuals think as the foundation of their overall lifestyle. With respect to offenders, their thinking patterns are, at root, inter-related to what is viewed as a criminal lifestyle.

And, in fact, what is being addressed in these posts is a lifestyle, the “career criminal” if you will. But it is even more than that, as so often criminality is conceptualized, either from a psychological, sociological, legal, etc. perspective, as a unitary construct. With respect to the lifestyle criminal, however, the choices and cognitions that dominate their interaction with the world, whether directly related to the commission of a crime or not, are generally criminal in nature. In other words, even if the lifestyle criminal is not committing a crime per se, the thinking and choices they make (from how they treat family members, to work habits, etc.) are determined from a pattern of criminal thinking and decision-making. This is why even a term like “career criminal” is inadequate; it suggests that a criminal’s actions are limited to the area of “employment.” In reality, the lifestyle criminal’s choices and cognitions impact most, if not all, areas of their life.

It is important to note that what is being referred to here is the true lifestyle criminal. An individual who has engaged in an isolated incident of criminality should not be labeled a lifestyle criminal. However, in these cases it is likely that, even if the thinking that led to the commission of the crime is not pervasive, it was present prior to/during the commission of the offense. In these cases, though, the criminal thinking was not simply part of the individual’s general pattern of functioning. It is even possible to have the aforementioned “career criminal,” though again, the criminal thinking patterns will be more prevalent than in the case of the isolated incident, and will also be more likely to “spill over” into other areas of the career criminal’s life.

With regard to these observations of various levels of criminal activity, it is important to note, that even with lifestyle criminals, the degree of criminality may be viewed on a continuum. While in treatment we do not rate various crimes on a continuum (for reasons cited here), but it is necessary to be aware that anyone is capable of exhibiting a criminal thinking pattern, even if it does not lead to a criminal behavior. No one, even the most “honest” among us, is “off of the continuum” (if you’ve ever justified or rationalized driving five miles over the speed limit, raise your hand!). What is important to note, however, is that the frequency and intensity of the criminal thinking is so much higher for the lifestyle criminal, and the resulting behaviors so much more egregious (again in terms of frequency and intensity) that there is, ultimately, a fundamental difference between the lifestyle criminal and those in the general population. The focus of treatment is often on the lifestyle criminal, because even though they may not make up a particularly large section of the population, or even the offender population, they certainly leave the greatest wake of criminal, interpersonal, etc. damage. In addition, addressing the criminal choices and cognitions of the offenders who are not lifestyle criminals is still a requisite part of their treatment, and so the constructs will be the same, even if the application may differ somewhat.

Next up - definitions and examples of specific criminal thinking errors, and how they impact offender behavior.

Offender Therapy - The Issue of Choice

In my last post regarding offender therapy, I discussed, briefly, one of the three contributors to the development and maintenance of the criminal lifestyle - conditions.  In this post, I'll take a look at the second of the "Three Cs," according to Glenn Walters - Choice.

The conditions a person is impacted by - biological, societal, etc. - no doubt exert an influence on the type of lifestyle an individuals leads.  This is not incompatible with the concept of choice.  This relationship, unfortunately, is either not grasped, or acknowledged, by many people.  In discussions about responsibility for behavior, it seems many people will reflexively defend either conditions or choice as the only meaningful influence, while dismissing the other.  In fact, both have some impact one the direction of an individual's lifestyle.

The best way to consider the relationship between conditions and choice is to think of conditions as being the boundaries within which choices operate.  In other words, choices may be limited by the type of conditions an individual is under, but within those limitations, the individual makes choices with respect to their actions.  As a simple example, an individual with an IQ of 90 (a biological condition) has a certain limitation with respect to their choice of career - he or she likely cannot (like most of us!) become a neurosurgeon.  This is not a limitation for an individual with an IQ of 145 (everything else being equal).  However, an individual with an IQ of 90 has many choices available to him or her regarding career, despite the fact that may be limited in choices compared to the individual with an IQ of 145 (again, everything else being equal).

The number, and intensity, of the conditions impacting an individual may limit their number of choices to a greater degree than the average person, or even most people.  However, except with respect to the most extreme conditions (i.e. severe mental retardation), an individual makes choices within a band of options, and is not "forced" to behave a certain way.  From a therapeutic standpoint, this is extremely important, and must consistently be emphasized.  Otherwise, an offender will regularly distance themselves from responsibility for their criminal actions by identifying the various conditions that "left them no choice" but to act in a criminal manner.

A couple of other observations regarding the concept of choice.  First, we tend to hold children to different standards than adults with respect to the responsibilities for the choices they make.  This is appropriate, to the extent that the age and maturity level of the child is considered, as is the type of choice made.  While a five-year old's brain has developed very little thus far, and has an extremely small reservoir of prior knowledge to draw upon, a twelve-year old has a more fully functioning brain, and more experience, and an eighteen-year old even more.  A "One Size Fits All" approach to kids makes no more sense than to any other group.  Unfortunately, this is another area where many people will tend to defend either one extreme or the other.  Some will argue that, no matter the circumstances, the boy or girl "is just a kid," and will seek to blame parents, teachers, etc. for the choices of the child.  On the other hand, some will want children to be regarded as "miniature adults" regardless of their individual conditions at the time of their behavior, and seek to hold them accountable accordingly.  People and their behaviors are much too complicated to ever be able to apply a "One Size Fits All" approach - one must examine all of the factors involved in each particular case.

From a treatment perspective, I have often seen more of the first style than of the second (from a legal perspective, you tend to see both).  That is, parents and others using conditions and "pseudo-conditions" (what I would define as conditions that are only conditions because of choices already made) to excuse the behaviors of children (especially adolescents) that were clearly choices.  "Little Johnny is a good boy," a parent might say of their 15-year old son, "he just runs with a bad crowd."  Most schools have multiple "crowds" with which to run - why has Johnny chosen to run with this particular crowd?  Why, when this "crowd" skips school, picks on others, and engages in substance abuse, does Johnny stay with them?  Could it be that Johnny is attracted to the activities of this crowd?  Hard for a parent to acknowledge, no doubt, but better to acknowledge now, rather than later, when this "crowd is older, involved in even more extreme behaviors, and these activities are more ingrained in "little" Johnny's behavioral arsenal.

The other issue I often discuss with clients is expanding their range of options ("choices") by addressing the conditions in their life that are amenable to change.  Some conditions, like a physical characteristic), may not be changeable.  I've often joked with my groups that my first choice in career would have been to be a point guard in the NBA - however, I'm too slow, too uncoordinated, and too bound by the laws of gravity (i.e. I can't jump) to play good intramural ball, let alone professional ball.  Does that give me permission to knock off convenience stores?  On the other hand, other conditions are amenable to change.  Consider sphere of information.  If a child grows up with two alcoholic parents, they may learn only one way to "cope" with stress - consumption of alcohol.  Their sphere of information is extremely limited in this regard.  We really cannot expect the person, at age 18, to have too many other behavioral coping strategies with respect to stress, because they've never seen them, or learned them.  However, they can learn them, if they provide themselves with the opportunity (e.g. entering therapy, enrolling in AA, etc.).  I always frame an offender's participation in therapy in this way - we are expanding one's sphere of information, so that he/she has a wider range of informed options available to them when decisions in the future will need to be made.  And, as an adult, one is held to the standard of affording themselves to opportunities to change, if the current behavior is not effective.  That is, if it ain't working, fix it.  And if you can't do it by yourself, get help.

In closing, conditions inform the number of choices available to an individual, but an individual always has choices.  In therapy with offenders, this point must be consistently emphasized in order to increase the level of accountability an offender has for their actions.  Next, we will take a look at the third "C" - cognitions, or thoughts about ourselves, others and the world that influence the choices we make.   

White Collar Criminals Are, In Fact, Criminals - Who Knew?

Via Psychology and Crime News, I came across this article in the Washington Post, which addresses the issue of the white-collar criminal.  In this case, they examined government employees who defraud the government.  This article only scratches the surface of the criminal thinking involved in committing these types of offenses, but it did identify narcissism as one facet.  Having working at a minimum security facility, which is primarily white-collar and non-violent offenders, I can unequivocally state that the thinking errors for these types of offenders are the same as for the more violent types of criminals, they just manifest differently (for a variety of reasons).  Anyone who has worked with offenders of this sort will recognize all of the typical thinking patterns.  As I continue to review the various criminal thinking errors (which I started with the introduction to mollification, here), I may refer back to this article for several examples.