A desistance paradigm for offender management
In an influential article published in the British Journal of Social Work in 1979, Anthony Bottoms and Bill McWilliams proposed the adoption of a ‘non-treatment paradigm’ for probation practice. Their argument rested on a careful and considered analysis not only of empirical evidence about the ineff...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Criminal justice (London, England : 2001) England : 2001), 2006-02, Vol.6 (1), p.39-62 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | In an influential article published in the British Journal of Social Work in
1979, Anthony Bottoms and Bill McWilliams proposed the adoption of a
‘non-treatment paradigm’ for probation practice. Their argument
rested on a careful and considered analysis not only of empirical evidence about the
ineffectiveness of rehabilitative treatment but also of theoretical, moral and
philosophical questions about such interventions. By 1994, emerging evidence about
the potential effectiveness of some intervention programmes was sufficient to lead
Peter Raynor and Maurice Vanstone to suggest significant revisions to the
‘non-treatment paradigm’. In this article, it is argued that a
different but equally relevant form of empirical evidence—that derived
from desistance studies—suggests a need to re-evaluate these earlier
paradigms for probation practice. This reevaluation is also required by the way that
such studies enable us to understand and theorize both desistance itself and the
role that penal professionals might play in supporting it. Ultimately, these
empirical and theoretical insights drive us back to the complex interfaces between
technical and moral questions that preoccupied Bottoms and McWilliams and that
should feature more prominently in contemporary debates about the futures of
‘offender management’ and of our penal systems. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1466-8025 1748-8958 1748-8966 |
DOI: | 10.1177/1748895806060666 |