User:$eba$tian23/sandbox

The following analysis introduces one main question: what are the right levers for the government to pull in order to prevent recidivism? This research takes place in the framework of behavioral sciences, which usually includes the fields of sociology, social and cultural anthropology, psychology; and behavioral aspects of biology, economics, geography, law, psychiatry, and political science. The topic of recidivism is well-discussed in Belgium, introduced by the legislator to cope with the broader social phenomenon of repeated criminal behaviour.

History
After the United States saw crime rates soar during the 1960s, a debate flared up about prison reform and how to punish criminals. In 1966, the New York State governor’s Special Committee on Criminal Offenders made an inquiry as to what measures could be taken to enable prisons to rehabilitate their prisoners. Half a year later, Robert Martinson, Douglas Lipton and Judith Wilkes presented their findings compiled into one book, ‘The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies’ in which they had examined every available study about rehabilitation. They concluded that: “With few exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have no appreciable effect on recidivism.”

Since the article of Martinson ended up in the center of media attention, the governmental approach towards criminal justice switched from attempting to reduce crime to crime control. In 1989, the US Supreme Court stated that from that point on defendants must be sentenced strictly for the crime, without recognition to amenability to treatment, personal or family history, previous efforts to rehabilitate or eventual alternatives to imprisonment.

Starting in Canada in 1979, researchers such as Andrews, Bonta and Hoge challenged Martinson's view and used a different approach, namely 'what does work?' Their analysis concluded that there were, in fact, some programs that successfully reduced recidivism rates. They since then have drawn out principles that should be inherent to an effective program, commonly referred to as the 'what works'-principles.

Risk principle
The term ‘risk’ represents the likelihood of the subject to relapse into criminal conduct after having sat out the initial sanction. The risk principle as such prescribes that the intensity of the punishment for the primary misconduct must be in perfect balance with the subject’s risk to recidivism. If this balance isn't kept it might actually have an opposite effect. Therefore an accurate estimation of the offender’s risk proves absolutely indispensable, usually provided by numerous tools precisely specified by factors such as the nature of the crime or the age of the perpetrator.

Necessity principle
Besides the risk of the subject’s relapse, the policymaker is also obligated to take into account the specific and personal needs of the perpetrator. To make the intervention successful, these need to be carefully identified firstly, later the program must also be specifically fine-tuned to answer these needs in order to book results.

Responsivity principle
The development of the responsivity principle is twofold: the intervention is proven to be construed as a behavioral approach and should reflect the personal needs of the subject. Under these personal characteristics can be well-comprehended issues such as language barriers, intelligence discrepancies, and motivational issues and in an ideal situation, these matters are addressed in a way that works well for both the perpetrator and tutor. In terms of policymaking, it is important to leave enough discretion to the judge and the tutor in order to decide freely between the available options and subsequently to determine the most fitting intervention.

Treatment modality principle
Attempting to counter the chances of recidivism, the program first identifies the thought process leading to the misconduct and then the subject is taught to exclude his (or her) criminal surroundings by training social skills and basic interaction with other people. By encouraging the perpetrator to transform his social circle, the policymaker could have a good chance at stimulating future ‘good’ behavior.

Program integrity principle
A decent, coherent and deeply scientifically based program is a central condition that must be fulfilled if the policymaker seeks to have a positive effect on recidivism rates. In order to contribute to the quality standards of an intervention, attention should be paid not only to the program itself but also to all its actors: the designer, the participant and the tutor.

Professionalism principle
This principle is largely analogous to the principle of program integrity but focuses more heavily on the executors: the quality of tutors is vital for the success of the program and thus have to be flexible to deal with the risk and personal needs of their subject as well as extensively trained in the treatment modality.

Community-based principle
By counteracting the possibility of alienation of the perpetrator, the last principle strives to include the social environment and promote contact with his surrounding network. In order to do so, family, friends and the community itself might be mobilized and the policymaker is advised to opt for alternative punishments or to assign the subject to an institution close to home.

Link to behavioral sciences
It is as a consequence of behavioral insights that these seven levers could be identified and in light of the link between policy-making and behavioral findings, it is up to the policymaker to implement these findings. The legislator needs to be encouraged to aim for these behavioral principles to be taken into consideration, as should the judge when composing a sentence out of the variety of possible punishments. If these steps are followed in consistency with the aforementioned findings, applying the ‘what works’-principles should result in a notable reduction in recidivism, which benefits ever actor of society.