The aim of our paper is to gain insight in the desistance process of drug-using offenders. We explore the components of change in the desistance process of drug-using offenders by using the cognitive transformation theory of Giordano et al. as a theoretical framework. The desistance process of drug-using offenders entails a two-fold process: desistance of criminal offending and recovery. The results however indicate that desistance is subordinate to recovery because of the fact that drug-using offenders especially see themselves as drug users and not as “criminals.” Their first goal was to start recovery from drug use. They were convinced that recovery from drug use would lead them to a stop in their offending. In the discussion, we explore the implications of this result for further research.

The recovery paradigm is a widely accepted strength-based approach in general mental health care. Particular challenges arise when applying this paradigm in a forensic context. To address these issues, the present study examined recovery based on first-person narratives of offenders formerly labeled as not criminally responsible of whom the judicial measure was abrogated. Eleven in-depth interviews were conducted to obtain information on lived experiences and recovery resources of this hard-to-reach and understudied population. The interviews focused on recovery and elements that indicated a sense of progress in life. Key themes were derived from the collected data. Descriptions of recovery resources followed recurrent themes, including clinical, functional, social, and personal resources. Participants also reported ambiguous experiences related to features of the judicial trajectory. This was defined as forensic recovery and can be seen as an additional mechanism, besides more established recovery dimensions, that is unique to mentally ill offenders.

Many people who think about suicide do not engage in suicidal behavior. Identifying risk factors implicated in the process of behavioral enaction is crucial for suicide prevention, particularly in high-risk groups such as prisoners. Method: Cross-sectional data were drawn from a nationally representative sample of 17,891 prisoners (79% men) in the United States. We compared prisoners who attempted suicide (attempters; n = 2,496) with those who thought about suicide but never made an attempt (ideators; n = 1,716) on a range of established risk factors. Results: More than half (59%) of participants who experienced suicidal ideation had also attempted suicide. Violent offending, trauma, brain injury, alcohol abuse, and certain mental disorders distinguished attempters from ideators. Conclusion: Our results fit within recent ideation-to-action theories that emphasize the role of a capability for suicide in the transition from thoughts to acts of suicide. Suicide is a global public health concern (Turecki et al., 2019) which disproportionally impacts on the most vulnerable members of society, including people exposed to the criminal justice system (Webb et al., 2011). Specifically, suicide is a leading cause of death in prisoners (Favril, Wittouck, Audenaert, & Vander Laenen, 2019), with rates at least three times higher than in age-equivalent peers outside prison (Fazel, Ramesh, & Hawton, 2017). Prisoners who die by suicide only represent the tip of the iceberg; many more consider or attempt suicide without a fatal outcome. Large-scale studies from Australia

Introduction -Taking care of a family member with a mental illness imposes burden on various aspects

The recent focus on extending risk assessment and treatment in forensic mental health with protective factors relates to the increasing interest in strengths-based approaches in various professional disciplines: law (e.g. human rights), criminology (e.g. desistance), mental health care (e.g. recovery), forensic psychology (e.g. the Good Lives Model), special needs education (e.g. Quality of Life) and family studies (e.g. family recovery). In this article, we will discuss the available knowledge with regard to strengths-based approaches for offenders with mental illness, in relation to these different disciplines. Several dilemmas are observed across these disciplines: (1) "Living apart together": the integration of different disciplines; (2) "Beyond Babylonian confusion and towards more theoretical research": conceptualization of strengths-based practices in different fields; (3) "No agency without autonomy": the individual in context; and (4) "Risks, strengths and capabilities": the search for an integrated paradigm. In our view, these different disciplines share a shift in how humankind is viewed, respecting agency in the interaction with people who have offended. Yet, differences apply to the objectives that the disciplines strive for, which warrants not to eclectically consider strengths-based working in each of the disciplines as 'being small variations of the same theme'.