Have you looked at Yokelson & Samenow's work on "Criminal Thinking Errors", etc?

We developed our program at the Kansas State Penitentiary in the 1980s with them in mind. Their groundbreaking work, probably the best that's been published, came close to how we perceived criminality. In the end, however, we saw it as somewhat monolithic. More important, their treatment program--wasn't it at St. Elizabeth's in DC, not a prison?--retained too much of a traditional psychotherapy framework that has had such abysmally poor outcomes.

Our program ended when the state contracted out all medical services to a private company and we left for private practice. Recently, with online State DOC records freely available, I've tracked those who finished our programs 20+ years ago. Most programs only report 3-year and some 5-year outcomes, not long enough as it turns out, showing just small decreases in recidivism, e.g., maybe down from 35% to 30% or a little better. Our programs have had very dramatic results, with some groups showing 0%. I haven't looked for awhile but I don't think any were over 5% and even those were more often technical violations, not new crimes.

The results didn't surprise me all that much--the post-treatment changes could be seen all those years ago, e.g., changes in cellmates, friends, how they dressed, posture, walking, talking, topics of conversation, dramatic transformations and no religiosity to confuse matters (and ultimately have no positive influence). Our focus was harmful behavior (criminal for inmates admitting their crimes), and although it was their choice--nothing like boot-camp scared straight cruelty--written directions had to be followed or the work had to be done over, with back-and-forth interactions in writing only for the first year or more to avoid the traditional drawbacks of insight therapy, confrontation, and so on. What did surprise me is that most of the positive change had occurred even before groups were formed, just from the written assignments (which were voluminous)!

I was asking if anything like this has been done since. I didn't think so. Too many see criminality as intractable or requiring supportive "understanding" and focus on substance abuse and education, of significant value but quite inadequate in the end. However, change is possible and even likely if approached in a particular manner. Our approach acknowledged that most of those who are under-educated and abuse substances don't commit crimes, that drugs don't make people harm others, and that the crux of the matter--the relevant theoretical constructs--is the difference between those with too little school and/or too many drugs who harm others and those with too little school and/or too many drugs who don't.

Did you do Therapeutic Community (TC) programming? (You didn't name it, as such, but you seem to be alluding to some of its components)

I had a client who was on parole - and had been in and out of jail for criminal offences from a young age. I was counselling him for a drugs related offence. It was a drug diversion program designed to keep the offender out of jail. From what the client told me the reason he stole (breaking in) was because of the "rush" (dopamine) it gave him. It was not the fact that he could/would sell or use the articles he stole. These articles were a bonus - the main reason was the feeling he got when breaking in. He said that as time went by he would have the same "rush" when he saw an open window or other opening he could easily get through. So what I was dealing with here was not just a drug addiction (and this was a minor issue) but an addiction to breaking in. Much the same as the addiction to gambling. There are all sorts of theories out there when it comes to gambling addiction - but the low dopamine theory (the gambler needs to gamble in order to "produce" more dopamine in order to feel good) makes sense to me. This client's breaking-in problem was in my opinion an addiction issue. It was a learned response (conditioning) and aversion therapy might have been the answer for this client. But my job was to help him with the drug addiction and not the breaking-in addiction (this is where counselling/psychotherapy falls down as some "parts" of the client are touched upon but the whole does not get the attention it should). So, in my opinion, conditioning could play a role in learning the behaviour in the first place - but also in "unlearning" the behaviour later. But it should be noted that "emotional memories" are not under cognitive control (right hemisphere) and "cognitive memories" are under cognitive control (left hemisphere) - see the work of Robert Moss PhD on RG re Clinical Biopsychology. So, if Bob is right, them these "emotional memories" must be "restructured" (re-learnt). Pavlov rides again!

One of Yokelson & Samenow's characteristics of criminals--very important as far as they were concerned--was the excitement that criminals craved and felt they had to keep getting. No doubt this is the case for some but I wonder if it's even over half. A "criminal personality" doesn't seem any more real than an "alcoholic personality." Criminals are similar to everyone in that we all have the need to feel a reasonable measure of control over our lives. The more pathological among us learn only harmful behavioral repertoires to achieve this; for criminals, what they do is illegal too. This control need is not the need that "control freaks" also have, i.e., to control others. Once criminals learn or invent some nonharmful ways to feel in control of what happens to them, their past criminal solutions will be less and less important to them.

I've always been leery of therapeutic communities, the exclusivity and pervasive self-righteousness some of their leaders seem to project. They don't seem to tolerate independent analysis well. I've wondered why so many of their graduates feel the need to stay in the group, why they have the aura of a "lifestyle" and why they seem to have so much money, expensive offices and buildings on expensive pieces of real estate. I'm sure they are all not this way but I've seen enough of them that are, requiring high commitment that they have determined is necessary to a positive outcome. I think our outcomes far exceeded theirs without any of that window-dressing and pressure. That said, I'm sure their approach is good for many. I've just wondered if it's necessary.

An interesting paper for those who have not yet seen it. I am suggesting that this could apply to criminal behaviour too - reward being dopamine release. If what they say is true them conditioning would complete the picture. What do you think?

Have to come across James Gilligan's work on shame and it's links to violence, and criminality? His book "Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic" is profound. Much of his thinking is drawn from his extensive work as a psychiatrist and psychotherapist in prisons.

I thank everyone for responding. I’ve mentioned how influential Yokelson & Samenow have been. The low dopamine view makes sense too but I’d tend to view it as a consequence of, one could say, making the “thinking errors” of Yokelson & Samenow. The whole “excitement” addiction notion—changes in the thinking patterns (or getting rid of the “errors”) I conceive are achieved by conditioning—is compelling but it doesn’t always apply. As for Gilligan’s shame, I see that although I’ve viewed the “respect” thing he write about just as much a function of dominance and fear. (Plus, the “epidemic” he refers to in his title is just not true anymore, i.e., the crime rate, from murder, the most reliable statistic, to auto theft, has been decreasing in the US since the early 1990s.)

However, all of this is useful theory that I believe my control theory encompasses. I see the development in a person of what I call pathological control thinking as similar to Erikson’s totalism which he defines as a predisposition to totalitarian conviction, and that means the lack of the development of what I call accountable control thinking which I see as similar to Erikson’s concept of “wholeness” in those who incorporate moral principles, for example, into their thinking about how to gain a feeling of control of their lives. Both are collections of habitual thinking patterns, one being rigid and harmful to others and oneself, and the other involving nonharmful interactions with others.

Be all that as it may, the criminal thinking and behavior program we developed at the prison involved changing strategies for gaining and maintain control—again, the kind of control we all need in order to feel good and mentally healthy, the control of what happens day to day and keeping it at a tolerable level, not the control freak’s control of others—from those that are harmful to those that are not. Thought conditioning—extinction and developing new thinking habits and increasing habit strength—is what it really is.

I asked the question I did to see if there were any other programs that reduced recidivism like ours did, from 30+% to