Ethics in Clinical Criminology - Criminal Justice

Ethics in clinical criminology examines the moral tensions that arise when clinical expertise serves both offender welfare and public safety. Clinical criminologists occupy a professional position defined by competing obligations that cannot be fully reconciled: obligations to the individuals they assess and treat, obligations to the communities whose safety depends on the accuracy of their predictions and the effectiveness of their interventions, obligations to the justice institutions that employ them and whose authority constrains their professional autonomy, and obligations to the scientific standards that govern the use of evidence in decisions with life consequences. This article, part of the Clinical Criminology section of the broader Criminology resource, examines the ethical frameworks governing clinical practice in criminal justice settings, analyzes the specific moral tensions that arise at the major decision points where clinical expertise is applied, and evaluates the institutional mechanisms through which ethical practice is promoted and violations are addressed.

Introduction

The ethical distinctiveness of clinical criminology derives from the coercive context in which it operates. In conventional clinical practice—psychotherapy, counseling, psychiatric treatment—the clinician’s primary obligation is to the client, and the therapeutic relationship is governed by principles of confidentiality, informed consent, and client autonomy that protect the individual’s interests. In criminal justice settings, these principles are fundamentally altered: the “client” may be an individual who has been ordered to participate in assessment or treatment by a court or corrections authority, confidentiality is limited by reporting obligations to supervision officers and courts, and the clinician’s assessment may be used to restrict the individual’s liberty in ways that serve public safety at the expense of individual freedom (Heilbrun, 2001).

The American Psychological Association‘s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, the National Association of Social Workers’ Code of Ethics, and the professional guidelines of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, the American Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology, and other relevant professional bodies all address the ethical obligations of practitioners working in criminal justice settings. These codes share common principles—competence, integrity, respect for persons, concern for welfare, social responsibility—but their application in the criminal justice context produces tensions that general ethical codes cannot fully resolve. The specifics of how competing obligations should be balanced in particular situations—when a client discloses information suggesting imminent risk, when an assessment instrument produces a result the clinician regards as misleading, when institutional pressure compromises clinical judgment—require the exercise of professional judgment within ethical frameworks that provide guidance but not mechanical decision rules (Ward, 2013).

Dual-Role Obligations

The Therapist-Evaluator Tension

The most fundamental ethical tension in clinical criminology arises from the dual role that practitioners frequently occupy: simultaneously serving as the offender’s therapist and as an agent of the criminal justice system responsible for reporting compliance, assessing risk, and providing information that affects the individual’s liberty. In conventional therapeutic relationships, the client’s disclosures are protected by confidentiality and used exclusively for therapeutic purposes. In correctional treatment settings, the same disclosures may be reported to supervision officers, introduced in revocation proceedings, or considered in parole decisions—creating a dynamic in which the therapeutic relationship is embedded within a supervisory relationship whose purposes may conflict with the therapeutic goals (Ward, 2013).

The informed consent process is the primary mechanism for managing this tension ethically. Offenders entering treatment must be informed, at the outset and in understandable terms, of the limits on confidentiality that apply in their specific treatment context—what information will be shared with whom, under what circumstances, and for what purposes. Research on informed consent in correctional settings has documented that many offenders do not fully understand the limits on confidentiality when they enter treatment, and that the quality of informed consent procedures varies widely across programs and jurisdictions. Programs that provide clear, written consent documents and that discuss confidentiality limits in an initial orientation session produce better therapeutic engagement than those that bury consent language in intake paperwork or fail to address confidentiality proactively (Prescott, 2013).

The practical implications of limited confidentiality for therapeutic effectiveness are debated within the field. Some clinicians argue that limited confidentiality undermines the trust necessary for effective therapy, because offenders who know that their disclosures may be used against them will withhold the information that treatment must address—particularly information about deviant fantasies, high-risk behaviors, and rule violations that is most relevant to risk management. Others argue that limited confidentiality is both legally required and therapeutically compatible, because the accountability and monitoring functions that limited confidentiality serves are themselves therapeutic—they provide the external structure that supports the internalization of behavioral controls that many offenders have not developed. The empirical evidence on this question is limited and inconclusive, reflecting the difficulty of studying the effects of confidentiality arrangements on treatment process and outcomes in the absence of controlled comparison conditions (Heilbrun, 2001).

Clinician Independence and Institutional Pressure

Clinical criminologists employed by correctional agencies or retained by courts face institutional pressures that may compromise their professional independence. Correctional administrators may pressure psychologists to produce risk assessments that support institutional decisions already made, to clear inmates for release who pose genuine risk in order to manage overcrowding, or to extend treatment recommendations beyond clinical justification in order to maintain institutional control. Courts may expect clinicians to provide definitive predictions of dangerousness that exceed the precision of available assessment methods, or to frame their findings in adversarial terms that serve the prosecution’s interests rather than providing balanced clinical opinions (Heilbrun, 2001).

Maintaining professional independence under these conditions requires both individual ethical commitment and institutional safeguards that protect clinicians from retaliation for honest professional opinions. Professional guidelines mandate that clinical opinions be based on adequate data, appropriate assessment methods, and honest interpretation of findings, regardless of the institutional context in which the assessment is conducted or the preferences of the party that retained the clinician. In practice, maintaining this standard requires the courage to deliver findings that may displease institutional authorities and the professional standing to withstand the pressures that institutional employment creates. Clinicians who lack tenure protections, who depend on the continued goodwill of agencies for their livelihood, or who operate in institutional cultures that punish dissent face structural incentives toward conformity that ethical guidelines alone cannot overcome (Ward, 2013).

The use of external consultants and independent review mechanisms provides an institutional safeguard against the compromising effects of organizational pressure. When risk assessments or treatment recommendations carry high-stakes consequences—civil commitment decisions, parole release recommendations, sentencing evaluations—independent clinical review by practitioners who are not employed by the requesting agency provides a check on institutional bias and enhances the credibility of the clinical opinion. Professional standards for forensic evaluation increasingly recommend the use of multiple evaluators, structured instruments, and documented reasoning that enables review by other qualified practitioners—transparency mechanisms that reduce the scope for institutional pressure to influence clinical judgment (Prescott, 2013).

Predictive Ethics

The Moral Status of Risk Prediction

The use of risk prediction to restrict individual liberty raises fundamental ethical questions about the justification for imposing consequences based on forecasts of future behavior rather than judgments about past conduct. The retributive justification for punishment holds that individuals should be punished in proportion to the seriousness of the offense they have committed—a backward-looking principle that grounds consequences in what the individual has done. Risk-based decision-making is forward-looking: it restricts liberty based on predictions about what the individual might do in the future, using probability estimates derived from the behavior of other individuals with similar characteristics (Harcourt, 2007).

The philosophical challenge is that risk prediction operates at the group level—identifying categories of individuals who reoffend at specified rates—while the liberty restrictions it generates are imposed on specific persons who may or may not actually reoffend. An individual classified as “high risk” based on validated assessment may never commit another offense; an individual classified as “low risk” may commit a serious violent crime. When the high-risk individual is detained, denied parole, or subjected to intensive supervision based on group probability, the restriction is imposed on a specific person whose actual future behavior is unknown and unknowable—a form of preventive restraint that sits uneasily with the legal principle that individuals should be treated based on their own conduct rather than the statistical characteristics of a reference group (Hart, Michie, & Cooke, 2007).

The proportionality concern adds an additional ethical dimension. If risk-based decisions produce restrictions that exceed what the individual’s offense would justify under retributive principles—longer sentences, more restrictive supervision, delayed release—then risk assessment functions as a mechanism for imposing additional punishment based on characteristics rather than conduct. Conversely, if risk-based decisions produce restrictions that are less than what the offense would justify—because the individual’s assessed risk is low—then risk assessment may serve as a mechanism for reducing disproportionate punishment. The ethical evaluation of risk-based decision-making depends on whether it is used to increase or decrease restrictions relative to a just baseline—a question whose answer varies across decision points, populations, and jurisdictions (Monahan & Skeem, 2016).

Algorithmic Fairness and Racial Equity

The racial equity implications of algorithmic risk assessment represent the most intensely debated ethical issue in contemporary clinical criminology. The documented racial disparities in risk assessment scores—and the mathematical impossibility of satisfying competing fairness criteria simultaneously when base rates differ across groups—create ethical dilemmas that technical solutions alone cannot resolve. The choice among fairness criteria—equal false positive rates, equal false negative rates, predictive parity, or calibration—is fundamentally a value judgment about which form of inequality is least acceptable, and different stakeholders may reasonably disagree about the answer (Chouldechova, 2017).

The upstream sources of racial disparity in risk scores compound the ethical challenge. If criminal history variables reflect racially disparate policing and prosecution rather than racially disparate behavior, then risk instruments that weight criminal history heavily will amplify historical discrimination in algorithmic form. Removing criminal history from instruments reduces racial disparity but also reduces predictive accuracy, creating a trade-off between equity and precision that has no costless resolution. The ethical obligation of practitioners who use risk instruments is to understand and communicate these limitations—to ensure that decision-makers who rely on risk scores are aware of the racial equity implications and the uncertainties inherent in individual-level prediction from group-based statistics (Skeem & Lowenkamp, 2016).

The broader question of whether algorithmic risk assessment is more or less equitable than the unstructured human judgment it replaces is important for ethical evaluation. Research consistently demonstrates that unstructured judicial decision-making produces significant racial disparities—disparities that may be larger and less transparent than those produced by algorithmic instruments. To the extent that structured instruments reduce the scope for implicit racial bias to influence individual decisions, they may advance racial equity even while producing some degree of aggregate racial disparity in scores. The ethical evaluation of risk assessment must therefore be comparative rather than absolute—assessed against the realistic alternative of human judgment with its own biases rather than against an ideal of perfect fairness that neither humans nor algorithms can achieve (Monahan & Skeem, 2016).

Treatment Ethics

Coercion and Voluntariness

The voluntariness of treatment participation in criminal justice settings is ethically ambiguous. Offenders who participate in treatment “voluntarily”—in the sense that they are not physically compelled—may face consequences for refusal that are so severe as to render the choice functionally coerced: denial of parole, more restrictive supervision, loss of good-time credits, or continued civil commitment. The distinction between inducement and coercion is a matter of degree rather than kind, and the ethical acceptability of justice-system incentives for treatment participation depends on the severity of the consequences for refusal, the therapeutic quality of the treatment offered, and the availability of meaningful alternatives (Parhar, Wormith, Derkzen, & Beauregard, 2008).

The legal and ethical frameworks governing treatment coercion vary across treatment contexts. In correctional programming, participation may be “voluntary” in name but strongly incentivized through institutional privileges, good-time credits, and parole eligibility. In specialty courts (drug courts, mental health courts), participation is typically a condition of case disposition, with the alternative being conventional prosecution and potential incarceration. In civil commitment for sexually violent predators, treatment is the nominal justification for continued confinement, though the indefinite duration of commitment and the difficulty of demonstrating sufficient change to warrant release raise questions about whether treatment is truly therapeutic or merely the legal predicate for preventive detention (Ward, 2013).

The evidence on whether coerced treatment is less effective than voluntary treatment is mixed. Some studies find that treatment mandated by courts or corrections produces equivalent outcomes to treatment entered voluntarily—suggesting that the motivation generated by external pressure can substitute for intrinsic motivation, at least for the purposes of behavioral change. Other studies find that intrinsic motivation, measured by instruments such as the URICA (University of Rhode Island Change Assessment), is a significant predictor of treatment outcome independent of the circumstances of treatment entry. The motivational interviewing approach, widely adopted in correctional treatment, addresses the motivation challenge directly—using non-confrontational therapeutic techniques to develop the intrinsic motivation for change that may not be present at treatment entry but that can be cultivated through skilled clinical engagement (Parhar et al., 2008).

Therapeutic Integrity and Program Quality

The ethical obligation to provide effective treatment—rather than merely to document that treatment was offered—creates responsibilities that extend beyond individual clinical practice to the organizational and systemic conditions that determine treatment quality. Offenders who are mandated to participate in treatment have a right to treatment that meets minimum standards of clinical quality—treatment that is evidence-based, delivered by trained practitioners, and monitored for fidelity and outcomes. Programs that provide treatment in name but not in substance—that use outdated methods, employ untrained staff, or fail to monitor outcomes—violate the ethical obligation to provide effective intervention and may produce harm by consuming time and resources without producing the change that both the individual and the community require (Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith, 2001).

The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) provides a framework for evaluating whether programs meet the standards of effective correctional intervention. Programs scoring below threshold on the CPAI are unlikely to reduce recidivism and may produce iatrogenic effects—making participants worse rather than better through exposure to antisocial peers, reinforcement of criminal thinking, or the demoralization that results from participation in ineffective programming. The ethical obligation to ensure program quality creates responsibilities for program administrators, funding agencies, and oversight bodies that extend beyond the ethical obligations of individual practitioners (Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006).

The measurement of treatment outcomes—tracking recidivism, symptom change, risk factor reduction, and other indicators of therapeutic impact—is an ethical as well as a scientific requirement. Programs that do not measure their outcomes cannot demonstrate their effectiveness, cannot identify problems requiring correction, and cannot provide the accountability that mandated treatment requires. The ethical obligation to measure outcomes is particularly acute in high-stakes treatment contexts—sex offender treatment, civil commitment, mental health court programming—where the consequences of treatment failure include serious criminal victimization and where the deprivation of liberty justified by treatment expectations must be supported by evidence that treatment is actually producing the outcomes it promises (Ward, 2013).

Systemic and Structural Ethics

Resource Allocation and Distributive Justice

Clinical criminology operates within systems characterized by severe resource constraints that create ethical dilemmas of distributive justice—decisions about how limited treatment, supervision, and support resources should be allocated among individuals with competing needs. The RNR model’s risk principle provides a clinically grounded allocation framework—concentrating the most intensive resources on the highest-risk individuals—but the ethical implications of this principle for lower-risk individuals who are denied services they might benefit from are rarely addressed. The risk principle optimizes aggregate outcomes by directing resources where they produce the largest marginal return, but it does so at the cost of providing less to individuals whose needs, while genuine, are less criminogenically urgent (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).

The structural conditions that produce criminal behavior—poverty, racism, educational inequality, community disinvestment, intergenerational trauma—are largely beyond the capacity of clinical criminology to address, yet they determine the volume and character of the cases that clinical practitioners manage. The ethical question of whether clinical criminology should confine itself to individual-level assessment and treatment within existing structural conditions or should advocate for the structural reforms that would reduce the demand for its services is debated within the field. Some argue that clinical practitioners should focus on their area of competence—individual assessment and intervention—and leave structural advocacy to others. Others argue that clinicians who understand the systemic drivers of the problems they treat have an ethical obligation to communicate this understanding to policymakers and the public, even when doing so brings them into political terrain that professional norms traditionally discourage (Ward, 2013).

The concentration of criminal justice resources on enforcement and incarceration rather than prevention and treatment represents a macro-level allocation decision with profound ethical implications. The evidence that treatment and prevention produce better outcomes at lower cost than incarceration creates an ethical argument for resource reallocation that is both consequentialist (more good is produced) and rights-based (fewer individuals are subjected to the liberty deprivation of incarceration). Clinical criminologists who produce the evidence supporting this reallocation occupy a position from which advocacy for evidence-based policy is both professionally appropriate and ethically warranted—provided that advocacy is grounded in evidence rather than ideology and that the limitations of the evidence are honestly communicated (Gendreau et al., 2001).

Professional Standards and Accountability

The accountability of clinical criminologists is maintained through professional licensing, ethical codes, peer review, institutional oversight, and the legal frameworks that govern professional practice in forensic and correctional settings. State licensing boards regulate the practice of psychology, social work, and counseling and can impose disciplinary sanctions—including license revocation—for violations of professional standards. Ethical codes promulgated by professional organizations establish standards of competence, integrity, and professional responsibility that practitioners are expected to follow. And the legal frameworks governing forensic evaluation—including case law on expert testimony, standards for civil commitment proceedings, and due process requirements for risk-based liberty decisions—create enforceable standards that shape clinical practice (Heilbrun, 2001).

The adequacy of these accountability mechanisms is debated. Critics argue that professional self-regulation is insufficient to prevent ethical violations in the coercive environment of criminal justice, where the power asymmetry between practitioners and the individuals they assess creates opportunities for exploitation that professional codes and licensing oversight cannot fully prevent. The opacity of much clinical practice in corrections—conducted behind institutional walls, documented in records that are not publicly accessible, and subject to institutional review processes whose independence from agency management is variable—limits the transparency necessary for effective accountability (Prescott, 2013).

The development of practice guidelines specific to clinical criminology—including guidelines for risk assessment, sex offender treatment, forensic evaluation, and correctional mental health practice—represents an effort to codify ethical standards in forms that are more specific and more enforceable than general professional codes. These guidelines, developed by professional organizations with expertise in the specific practice domains, provide the detailed guidance that practitioners need to apply general ethical principles in the particular circumstances of criminal justice practice. Their effectiveness depends on dissemination, training, and the willingness of licensing boards and institutional oversight bodies to enforce compliance (Ward, 2013).

Emerging Ethical Challenges

Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision-Making

The growing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in criminal justice prediction creates ethical challenges that existing frameworks are only beginning to address. Machine learning models that identify patterns in large datasets may achieve incremental improvements in predictive accuracy, but they do so through mechanisms that resist human interpretation—creating a tension between accuracy and the transparency that due process requires. When an algorithm denies bail, recommends a longer sentence, or classifies an individual as high risk, the individual affected and their attorney may have no meaningful ability to understand, challenge, or appeal the basis for the decision (Dressel & Farid, 2018).

The ethical principles of explainability, contestability, and human oversight provide a framework for governing AI in criminal justice. Explainability requires that the basis for algorithmic decisions be communicable in terms that affected individuals and reviewing courts can understand. Contestability requires that individuals have meaningful opportunities to challenge algorithmic decisions that affect their liberty. Human oversight requires that algorithms inform rather than replace human decision-making—that a human decision-maker remains accountable for the outcome and has the authority to override algorithmic recommendations when case-specific factors warrant departure. These principles are easier to articulate than to implement, particularly when the algorithms involved are proprietary systems whose internal operations are protected as trade secrets (Monahan & Skeem, 2016).

The data governance challenges of AI in criminal justice extend beyond prediction to the collection, storage, and use of the personal data on which algorithms are trained. The aggregation of criminal justice data with data from other sources—social media, commercial databases, surveillance systems—creates possibilities for prediction and monitoring that raise surveillance concerns far beyond those associated with traditional risk assessment instruments. The ethical frameworks governing clinical criminology must evolve to address these technologically mediated challenges to privacy, autonomy, and dignity that the field’s founders could not have anticipated (Harcourt, 2007).

Restorative and Transformative Alternatives

The growing influence of restorative and transformative justice movements raises ethical questions about the adequacy of clinical criminology’s individual-level, risk-focused framework. Critics from restorative justice and critical criminology traditions argue that the clinical focus on individual assessment and treatment accepts the structural conditions that produce criminal behavior as given and thereby legitimizes a system that addresses symptoms while ignoring causes. The ethical question is whether clinical practitioners bear responsibility for the structural context in which they practice—whether providing effective individual treatment within a fundamentally unjust system is ethically sufficient, or whether ethical practice requires engagement with the systemic reforms that would reduce the demand for clinical intervention in the first place (Ward, 2013).

Transformative justice approaches—which seek to address harm through community-based processes that do not rely on the state’s coercive authority—challenge the foundational assumption of clinical criminology that the criminal justice system is the appropriate institutional framework for addressing criminal behavior. These approaches argue that the power imbalances, racial disparities, and institutional violence that characterize the criminal justice system cannot be reformed through better assessment tools and more effective programs; they require fundamental transformation of the relationship between the state and the communities most affected by both crime and punishment. The ethical engagement of clinical criminology with these critiques—neither dismissing them as politically motivated nor accepting them uncritically—represents one of the field’s most important intellectual challenges (Ward & Maruna, 2007).

Conclusion

Ethics in clinical criminology addresses the moral tensions inherent in a field that applies clinical expertise within the coercive institutional framework of the criminal justice system. The dual-role obligations of practitioners who serve simultaneously as therapists and agents of the state, the philosophical challenges of restricting liberty based on risk prediction, the equity implications of algorithmic assessment, the coercive dynamics of mandated treatment, and the resource allocation decisions that determine who receives services and at what quality level all present ethical challenges that professional codes provide guidance for but cannot definitively resolve.

The field’s ethical maturation has produced greater transparency about these tensions, more explicit informed consent processes, stronger quality assurance mechanisms, and a growing literature that subjects clinical criminology’s assumptions and practices to the ethical scrutiny they require. The integration of ethical analysis into practitioner training, program design, and policy development has strengthened the field’s capacity to manage its competing obligations in ways that are professionally defensible and morally justifiable.

The fundamental ethical challenge facing clinical criminology—how to apply clinical knowledge in the service of both individual welfare and public safety within institutions whose coercive authority constrains the conditions of practice—cannot be eliminated through better codes, better training, or better oversight. It is inherent in the field’s position at the intersection of clinical expertise and state power, and it demands ongoing moral attention from practitioners, administrators, policymakers, and the communities on whose behalf the criminal justice system operates. The quality of that moral attention will determine whether clinical criminology fulfills its promise of making criminal justice decisions more accurate, more humane, and more just.

References

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Anderson Publishing.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Bush, S. S., Connell, M. A., & Denney, R. L. (2006). Ethical practice in forensic psychology. American Psychological Association.
Chouldechova, A. (2017). Fair prediction with disparate impact. Big Data, 5(2), 153–163.
Day, A., & Ward, T. (2010). Offender rehabilitation as a value-laden process. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(3), 289–306.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2001). Implementation guidelines for correctional programs in the “real world.” In G. A. Bernfeld et al. (Eds.), Offender rehabilitation in practice (pp. 247–268). Wiley.
Glaser, B. (2003). Therapeutic jurisprudence: An ethical paradigm for therapists in sex offender treatment programs. Western Criminology Review, 4(2), 143–154.
Harcourt, B. E. (2007). Against prediction. University of Chicago Press.
Hart, S. D., Michie, C., & Cooke, D. J. (2007). Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(S49), s60–s65.
Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. Kluwer Academic.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? Criminology & Public Policy, 5(3), 575–594.
Monahan, J., & Skeem, J. L. (2016). Risk assessment in criminal sentencing. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 489–513.
Parhar, K. K., Wormith, J. S., Derkzen, D. M., & Beauregard, A. M. (2008). Offender coercion in treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(9), 1109–1135.
Prescott, D. S. (2013). Ethics and informed consent in the treatment of sexual abusers. In K. Harrison & B. Rainey (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of legal and ethical aspects of sex offender treatment and management (pp. 213–228). Wiley-Blackwell.
Skeem, J. L., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2016). Risk, race, and recidivism. Criminology, 54(4), 680–712.
Ward, T. (2013). Addressing the dual relationship problem in forensic and correctional practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 92–100.
Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. Routledge.
Arrigo, B. A. (2004). The ethics of therapeutic jurisprudence: A critical and theoretical inquiry of law, psychology, and crime. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11(1), 23–43.
Dvoskin, J. A., & Spiers, E. M. (2004). On the role of correctional officers in prison mental health. Psychiatric Quarterly, 75(1), 41–59.
Glancy, G. D., & Chaimowitz, G. A. (2005). The clinical use of risk assessment. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(1), 12–17.
Haag, A. M. (2006). Ethical dilemmas faced by correctional psychologists. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(4), 488–508.
Hannah-Moffat, K. (2013). Actuarial sentencing: An unsettled proposition. Justice Quarterly, 30(2), 270–296.
Magaletta, P. R., Patry, M. W., Dietz, E. F., & Ax, R. K. (2007). What is correctional about clinical practice in corrections? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(1), 7–21.
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Ogloff, J. R. P. (2002). Offender rehabilitation: From “nothing works” to what next? Australian Psychologist, 37(3), 245–252.
Pope, K. S., & Vasquez, M. J. T. (2016). Ethics in psychotherapy and counseling (5th ed.). Wiley.
Starr, S. B. (2014). Evidence-based sentencing and the scientific rationalization of discrimination. Stanford Law Review, 66(4), 803–872.
Taxman, F. S., & Belenko, S. (2012). Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections. Springer.
Weinberger, L. E., & Sreenivasan, S. (1994). Ethical and professional conflicts in correctional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25(2), 161–167.
Wormith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagan, T. J., & Morgan, R. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879–892.

Related Articles