No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Having an external locus of control has been associated with a range of well-supported risk correlates of offending behavior. Further, individuals with an internal locus of control orientation are suggested to be more open to engaging in treatment and are also considered more likely to have successful treatment outcomes. In forensic settings, where individuals are subject to external controls and have little personal autonomy, it is important to consider what treatment approaches might be most successful in reorienting individuals' locus of control. The Good Lives Model (GLM) proposes a strengths-based approach to the rehabilitation of individuals who have offended. Within the GLM, an external locus of control is suggested to be associated with a deficit in the primary good of agency. In this article, we will provide a brief overview of the literature on locus of control and its hypothesized role in offending behavior. We will discuss how an external locus of control orientation is related to personal agency and how strengths-based models, such as the GLM, may assist with reorienting locus of control in individuals who have offended through promoting personal agency.

The explanation of offending and reoffending currently relies upon the Risk-Need-Responsivity model's concept of "criminogenic need" (Andrews & Bonta, 2010;Bonta & Andrews, 2017) or dynamic risk factors (DRF). This is problematic because the DRF construct is predictive rather than explanatory, and suffers from a number of conceptual problems. Relatedly, the identification and management of DRF in individuals who have committed crimes is an overriding concern for the criminal justice system. It drives the formation of correctional policy and the funding of treatment programs in prisons, forensic hospitals, and probation services. Significant theoretical work is required in order to transform DRF into explanatory tools which are useful for research and practice. In this paper we outline problems with DRF which obstruct this process and then sketch out a possible way forward, the Risk-Causality Method, with its three phases of deconstruction, analysis, and reintegration.