About Correctional Quackery
Copyright (c) 2023 Fekete Márta, Hegedűs Judit
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
Correctional quackery is favouring treatment interventions that neither have evidence to their effectiveness nor are based on tried and existing knowledge as opposed to evidence-based practices. According to Edward J. Latessa, the problem with the discourse about criminal behaviour and offender programs is that many think they have the right knowledge to discuss and form opinion about it. However, it is often not the case. It is beyond question that the fresh eye of the nonprofessional can inspire new ideas, still, what we call as correctional quackery can be very dangerous when assessing the effectiveness of correctional work and professional staff working in closed institutions. The primary objective of this paper is to circle around the
phenomenon and see what answers international literature offers to correctional quackery and the effectiveness of prison work to offender behaviour.
Keywords:
How to Cite
References
Bonta, James (2004): Effective Practice – State of the Art (or Science?). Irish Probation Journal, 1(1), 57–72. Online: https://www.probation.ie/EN/PB/0/FE17764C58F76C668025803B0041E3EE/$File/IPJ2004Bonta.pdf
Cullen, Francis T. (2012): Taking Rehabilitation Seriously. Creativity, Science and the Challenge of Offender Change. Punishment and Society, 14(1), 94–114. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474510385973
Cullen, Francis T. – Blevins, Kristie R. – Trager, Jennifer S. – Gendreau, Paul (2005): The Rise and Fall of Boot Camps. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40(3–4), 53–70. Online: https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v40n03_03
Cullen, Francis T. – Jonson, Cheryl L. – Nagin, Daniel S. (2011): Prisons Do Not Reduce Recidivism: The High Cost of Ignoring Science. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 48S–65S. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885511415224
Czenczer Orsolya (2006): A büntetés-végrehajtási intézetek történetisége: a büntetések végrehajtásának egyes módozatai és intézményei a kezdetektől a rendszerváltásig (1989). Collega, 10(2–3), 84–93.
Czenczer Orsolya (2019): Az alapvető jogok biztosának a Nemzeti Megelőző Mechanizmus keretében végzett vizsgálatai egy bv-s szemével – különös tekintettel a fiatalkorúak szabadságvesztés büntetési intézeteiben végzett vizsgálatokra. Miskolci Jogi Szemle, 14(2), 135–146. Online: https://www.mjsz.uni-miskolc.hu/files/6546/16_czenczerorsolya_t%C3%B6rdelt.pdf
Flanagan, Timothy J. (1981): Dealing with Long-Term Confinement. Adaptive Strategies and Perspectives Among Long-Term Prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 8(2), 201–222. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/009385488100800206
Gendreau, Paul – Smith, Paula – Thériault, Yvette L. (2009): Chaos Theory and Correctional Treatment: Common Sense, Correctional Quackery and the Law of Fartcatchers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(4), 384–395. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986209344552
Latessa, Edward J. (2004): The Challenge of Change: Correctional Programs and Evidence-based Practices. Criminology and Public Policy, 3(4), 547–560. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2004.tb00061.x
Latessa, Edward J. – Cullen, Francis T. – Gendreau, P. (2002): Beyond Correctional Quackery – Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment. Federal Probation, 66(2), 43–49. Online: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/66_2_6_0.pdf
Latessa, Edward J. – Holsinger, Alexander (1998): The Importance of Evaluating Correctional Programs: Assessing Outcome and Quality. Correctional Management Quarterly, 2(4), 22–29. Online: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/odmhsas/documents/a0003/rempel-2c-mike-handout-2-importance-of-evaluating-correctly.pdf
Lee, Lynette C. – Stohr, Mary K. (2012): A Critique and Qualified Defense of “Correctional Quackery”. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28(1), 96–112. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986211432203
Mackenzie, Doris L. (2005): The Importance of Using Scientific Evidence to Make Decisions about Correctional Programming. Criminology and Public Policy, 4(2), 249–258. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2005.00019.x
Mackenzie, Doris L. – Goodstein, Lynne (1985): Long-Term Incarceration Impacts and Characteristics of Long-Term Offenders. An Empirical Analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(4), 395–414. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854885012004001
Polaschek, Devon L.L. (2012): An Appraisal of the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model of Offender Rehabilitation and Its Application in Correctional Treatment. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17(1), 1–17. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02038.x
Seeman, Melvin (1959): On the Meaning of Alienation. American Sociological Review, 24(6), 783–791. Online: https://doi.org/10.2307/2088565
Somogyvári, M. – Drexler, B. – Sánta, L. – Rutkai, K. szerk. (2016): II. Fogvatartotti statisztikák. Börtönstatisztikai Szemle. Budapest: BVOP.
Wheeler, Stanton (1961): Socialization in Correctional Communities. American Sociological Review, 26(5), 697–712. Online: https://doi.org/10.2307/2090199