Citation

Daffern M, Howells K, Mannion A, Tonkin M. Leg. Crim. Psychol. 2009; 14(2): 213-226.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, British Psychological Society, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1348/135532508X342919

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Purpose. Treatments and risk assessments determined by the offence paralleling behaviour (OPB) framework appear to have found a place in practice well ahead of empirical support and conceptual clarity. Although the framework is intuitively appealing its inappropriate use may have profound negative implications for patients. Incapacitation and unnecessary treatments may be demanded when observed behaviours are interpreted as evidence of persistent pathology related to previous patterns of criminal offending. Conversely, behaviours occurring within institutions that are not topographically similar but that fall within the same response class and do represent the continuation of problematic patterns of behaviour may be ignored if observers are not sensitive to the possibility that problem behaviours, albeit muted, may persist within institutions.