Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Die Rehabilitation von Straftätern

Das „Good-lives“-Modell

Offender rehabilitation

The good lives model

  • Übersicht
  • Published:
Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Rehabilitation von Straftätern findet primär aus der Perspektive des Risikomanagements statt. Das „Risk-need-responsivity“(RNR)-Modell, das dem Risikomanagement zugrunde liegt, intendiert primär die Sicherung von Rechtsgütern der Gesellschaft; die Verbesserung von Lebensqualität des Straftäters spielt eine untergeordnete Rolle. Im letzten Jahrzehnt wurde das „Good-lives“-Modell (GLM) von Ward et al. als Alternative bzw. Ergänzung zum RNR-Modell entwickelt. Das GLM betont die Wichtigkeit eines dualen Fokus in der Behandlung von Straftätern: Risikomanagement einerseits und Verbesserung der Lebensqualität andererseits. Der vorliegende Beitrag beschreibt die grundlegenden ätiologischen Annahmen des GLM und seine Implikationen für die Praxis; er verdeutlicht seine Stärken und seine Grenzen und referiert aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse zur empirischen Fundierung des GLM. Das GLM hat einen hohen Nutzen für die Therapie von Straftätern, insbesondere von Sexualstraftätern.

Abstract

The rehabilitation of offenders in English-speaking countries is primarily guided by a risk management framework (the risk-need-responsivity principles: RNR model), which aims at reducing the possibility of harm to the community rather than improving offenders’ quality of life. In the last decade Tony Ward and his colleagues have developed the good lives model of offender rehabilitation (GLM) as an alternative to the RNR model. The GLM incorporates the RNR principles of risk, need and responsivity into its theoretical structure while aiming to provide a more constructive and comprehensive approach to correctional practice. More specifically, it aims to both reduce risk while enhancing the quality of offenders’ lives. The present article aims at outlining the general, etiological assumptions and practice implications of the GLM. In addition, its strengths and limitations and evidence base are reported. These illustrations highlight the usefulness of the GLM for the treatment of offenders and sex offenders in particular.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Für das, was in Deutschland „Resozialisierung“ heißt, hat sich im angelsächsischen Sprachraum das Wort „rehabilitation“ eingebürgert.

Literatur

  1. Andrews D, Bonta J, Wormith JS (2011) Risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Crim Justice Behav 38(7):21. doi:10.1177/0093854811406356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andrews DA, Bonta J (2010) The psychology of criminal conduct, 5. Aufl. Anderson, Cincinnati

    Google Scholar 

  3. Andrews DA, Bonta J, Hoge RD (1990) Classification for effective rehabilitation: rediscovering psychology. Crim Justice Behav 17:19–52. doi:10.1177/0093854890017001004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Andrews DA, Dowden C (2005) Managing correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: a meta-analytic review of programme integrity. Legal Criminol Psychol 10(2):173–187. doi:10.1348/135532505X36723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Andrews DA, Zinger I, Hoge RD, Bonta J, Gendreau P, Cullen FT (1990) Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology 28(3):369–404. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. American Psychiatric Publishing, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  7. Barnett G, Wood JL (2008) Agency, relatedness, inner peace, and problem solving in sexual offending. Sex Abuse 20(4):444–465. doi:10.1177/1079063208325202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Beyko MJ, Wong SC (2005) Predictors of treatment attrition as indicators for program improvement not offender shortcomings: a study of sex offender treatment attrition. Sex Abuse 17(4):375–389. doi:10.1007/s11194-005-8050-8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Birgden A, Cucolo H (2011) The treatment of sex offenders. Sex Abuse 23(3):295–313. doi:10.1177/1079063210381412

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bonta J, Andrews D (2003) A commentary on Ward and Stewart’s model of human needs. Psychol Crime Law 9(3):215–218. doi:10.1080/10683/16031000112115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Böttger A (2000) Devianz als Episode-Wege des „Ausstiegs“ aus kriminalisierbarem Handeln. Z Soziol Erzieh Sozialisat 3:77–90

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bouman YH, de Ruiter C, Schene AH (2009) Recent life events and subjective well-being of personality disordered forensic outpatients. Int J Law Psychiatry 32(6):348–354. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.09.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Browne KD, Foreman L, Middleton D (1998) Predicting treatment drop-out in sex offenders. Child Abuse Rev 7(6):402–419. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0852(199811/12)7:6<402::AID-CAR530>3.0.CO;2-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Campbell TW (2003) Sex offenders and actuarial risk assessments: ethical considerations. Behav Sci Law 21(2):269–279. doi:10.1002/bsl.530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cortoni F, Hanson RK, Coache MÈ (2010) The recidivism rates of female sexual offenders are low: a meta-analysis. Sex Abuse 22(4):387–401. doi:10.1177/1079063210372142

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ellerby L, Bedard J, Chartrand S (2000) Holism, wellness, and spirituality: moving from relapse prevention to healing. In: Laws DR, Hudson SM, Ward T (Hrsg) Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: a sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, S 427–452

    Google Scholar 

  17. Elsner K (2006) Sexuell deviante Rechtsbrecher. In: Kröber H-L, Dölling D, Leygraf N, Sass H (Hrsg) Handbuch der Forensischen Psychiatrie. Steinkopff, Darmstadt, S 305–325

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Farrall S (2004) Social capital and offender reintegration: making probation desistance focused. In: Maruna S, Immarigeon R (Hrsg) After crime and punishment: pathways to offender reintegration. Willan, Devon, S 57–82

    Google Scholar 

  19. Franqué F von, Briken P (2013) Das „Good Lives Model“ (GLM). Forens Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol 7(1):22–27. doi:10.1007/s11757-012-0196-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, Rudolph JL (2002) Gender, crime, and desistance: toward a theory of cognitive transformation. Am J Sociol 107(4):990–1064. doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/343191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Giordano PC, Schroeder R D, Cernkovich SA (2007) Emotions and crime over the life course: a neo-meadian perspective on criminal continuity and change. Am J Sociol 112(6):1603–1661. doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/512710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Glaser B (2011) Paternalism and the good lives model of sex offender rehabilitation. Sex Abuse 23(3):329–345. doi:10.1177/1079063210382044

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Glueck S, Glueck E (1950) Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Commonwealth Fund, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Glueck S, Glueck E (1968) Delinquents and nondelinquents in perspective. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  25. Göbbels S, Ward T, Willis GM (2012) An integrative theory of desistance from sex offending. Aggress Violent Behav 17(5):453–462. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Göbbels S, Zimmermann L (2013) Die Rehabilitation von Straftätern: das „Risk-need-responsivity“-Modell. Forens Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol 7(1):12–21. doi:10.1007/s11757-012-0199-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Graffam J, Shinkfield A, Lavelle B, McPherson W (2005) Variables affecting successful reintegration as perceived by offenders and professionals. J Offender Rehab 40(1–2):147–171. doi:10.1300/J076v40n01_08

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hanson RK, Bourgon G, Helmus L, Hodgson S (2009) The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders. Crim Justice Behav 36(9):865–891. doi:10.1177/0093854809338545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hanson RK, Bussiere MT (1998) Predicting relapse: a meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. J Consult Clin Psychol 66(2):348–362. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.348

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hanson RK, Gordon A, Harris AJ, Marques JK, Murphy W, Quinsey VL et al (2002) First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sex Abuse 14(2):169–194. doi:10.1023/A:1014624315814

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hanson RK, Harris AJ (2000) Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism. Crim Justice Behav 27(1):6–35. doi:10.1177/0093854800027001002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon KE (2005) The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of recidivism studies. J Consult Clin Psychol 73(6):1154. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Higgins ET (1996) Ideals, oughts, and regulatory focus: affect and motivation from distinct pains and pleasures. In: Gollwitzer PM, Bargh JA (Hrsg) The psychology of action: linking cognition and motivation to behavior. Guilford, New York, S 91–114

    Google Scholar 

  34. Laub JH, Sampson RJ (1993) Crime in the making: pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1993.tb01132.x

    Google Scholar 

  35. Laub JH, Sampson RJ (2003) Shared beginnings, divergent lives: delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  36. Laws DR (1989) Relapse prevention with sex offenders. Guilford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Laws DR, O’Donohue WT (Hrsg) (2008) Sexual deviance: theory, assessment, and treatment. Guilford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Laws DR, Ward T (2011) Desistance from sex offending: alternatives to throwing away the keys. Guilford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lindsay WR, Ward T, Morgan T, Wilson I (2007) Self-regulation of sex offending, future pathways and the good lives model: applications and problems. J Sex Aggress 13(1):37–50. doi:10.1080/13552600701365613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lipsey MW (2009) The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: a meta-analytic overview. Vict Offenders 4(2):124–147. doi:10.1080/15564880802612573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lipsey MW, Cullen FT (2007) The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: a review of systematic reviews. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 3:297–320. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lösel F, Schmucker M (2005) The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: a comprehensive meta-analysis. J Exp Criminol 1(1):117–146. doi:10.1007/s11292-004-6466-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mann RE (2000) Managing resistance and rebellion in relapse prevention intervention. In: Laws DR, Hudson SM, Ward T (Hrsg) Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: a sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, S 187–200

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mann RE, Webster SD, Schofield C, Marshall WL (2004) Approach versus avoidance goals in relapse prevention with sexual offenders. Sex Abuse 16(1):65–75. doi:10.1023/B:SEBU.0000006285.73534.57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Marques JK, Wiederanders M, Day DM, Nelson C, van Ommeren A (2005) Effects of a relapse prevention program on sexual rcidivism: final results from California’s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project (SOTEP). Sex Abuse 17(1):79–107. doi:10.1007/s11194-005-1212-x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Marshall W, Serran G, Fernandez Y, Mulloy R, Mann R, Thornton D (2003) Therapist characteristics in the treatment of sexual offenders: tentative data on their relationship with indices of behaviour change. J Sex Aggress 9(1):25–30. doi:10.1080/355260031000137940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Maruna S (2001) Making good: how ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  48. McGrath RJ, Cumming GF, Burchard BL (2003) Current practices and trends in sexual abuser management: the Safer Society 2002 nationwide survey. Safer Society, Brandon

    Google Scholar 

  49. McMurran M, Howard R (Hrsg) (2009) Personality, personality disorder, and violence: an evidence based approach. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  50. McNeill F (2006) A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminol Crim Justice 6(1):39–62. doi:10.1177/1748895806060666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. McNeill F, Batchelor S, Burnett R, Knox J (2005) 21st century social work. In: Reducing re-offending: key practice skills. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh

  52. Moore DL, Bergman BA, Knox PL (1999) Predictors of sex offender treatment completion. J Child Sex Abuse 7(3):73–88. doi:10.1300/J070v07n03_05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ogloff JRP, Davis MR (2004) Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: contributions of the risk–needs–responsivity approach. Psychol Crime Law 10(3):229–242. doi:10.1080/10683160410001662735

    Google Scholar 

  54. Petersilia J (2003) When prisoners come home: parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  55. Polaschek DLL (2012) An appraisal of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment. Legal Criminol Psychol 17(1):1–17. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02038.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Serin RC, Lloyd CD (2009) Examining the process of offender change: the transition to crime desistance. Psychol Crime Law 15(4):347–364. doi:10.1080/10683160802261078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Serran G, Fernandez Y, Marshall W, Mann R (2003) Process issues in treatment: application to sexual offender programs. Prof Psychol Res Pract 34(4):368–374. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.34.4.368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Smith P, Gendreau P, Swartz K (2009) Validating the principles of effective intervention: a systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Vict Offenders 4(2):148–169. doi:10.1080/15564880802612581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Spöhr M (2009) Sozialtherapie von Sexualstraftätern im Justizvollzug: Praxis und Evaluation. Bundesministerium fuer Justiz. http://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Fachuntersuchungen/Sozialtherapie_von_Sexualstraftaetern_im_Justizvollzug_Praxis_und_Evaluation.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Zugegriffen: 28. Mai. 2012

  60. Stelly W, Thomas J (2011) Entwicklungsverläufe jugendlicher Mehrfachtäter. In: Boeger A (Hrsg) Jugendliche Intensivtäter. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, S 227–254. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-93017-6_10

  61. Stelly W, Thomas J, Kerner H-J (2003) Verlaufsmuster und Wendepunkte in der Lebensgeschichte: Eine Untersuchung des Einflusses soziobiographischer Merkmale auf sozial abweichende und sozial integrierte Karrieren. Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  62. Thomas J, Stelly W (2008) Kriminologische Verlaufsforschung zu Jugendkriminalität. Forens Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol 2(3):199–206. doi:10.1007/s11757-008-0086-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Uggen C (2000) Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: a duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. Am Sociol Rev 65(4):529–546. doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Ward T (2000) Sexual offenders’ cognitive distortions as implicit theories. Aggress Violent Behav 5(5):491–507. doi:10.1016/s1359-1789(98)00036-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Ward T, Birgden A (2007) Human rights and correctional clinical practice. Aggress Violent Beh 12(6):628–643. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2007.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Ward T, Brown M (2004) The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psych Crime Law 10(3):243–257. doi:10.1080/10683160410001662744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Ward T, Gannon TA (2006) Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: the comprehensive good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggress Violent Beh 11(1):77–94. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2005.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Ward T, Mann RE, Gannon TA (2007) The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: clinical implications. Aggress Violent Beh 12(1):87–107. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ward T, Marshall WL (2004) Good lives, aetiology and the rehabilitation of sex offenders: a bridging theory. J Sexual Aggress 10(2):153–169. doi:10.1080/13552600412331290102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ward T, Maruna S (2007) Rehabilitation: beyond the risk paradigm. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  71. Ward T, Melser J, Yates PM (2007) Reconstructing the risk–need–responsivity model: a theoretical elaboration and evaluation. Aggress Violent Beh 12(2):208–228. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Ward T, Nee C (2009) Surfaces and depths: evaluating the theoretical assumptions of cognitive skills programmes. Psych Crime Law 15(2–3):165–182. doi:10.1080/10683160802190889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Ward T, Salmon K (2009) The ethics of punishment: correctional practice implications. Aggress Violent Beh 14(4):239–247. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.03.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Ward T, Stewart C (2003) The relationship between human needs and criminogenic needs. Psych Crime Law 9(3):219–224. doi:10.1080/1068316031000112557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ward T, Stewart CA (2003) The treatment of sex offenders: risk management and good lives. Prof Psych Res Pract 34(4):353. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.34.4.353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Ward T, Syversen K (2009) Human dignity and vulnerable agency: an ethical framework for forensic practice. Aggress Violent Beh 14(2):94–105. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Ward T, Vess J, Collie RM, Gannon TA (2006) Risk management or goods promotion: the relationship between approach and avoidance goals in treatment for sex offenders. Aggress Violent Beh 11(4):378–393. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Ware J, Bright DA (2008) Evolution of a treatment programme for sex offenders: changes to the NSW Custody-Based Intensive Treatment (CUBIT). Psychiat Psych Law 15(2):340–349. doi:10.1080/13218710802014543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Whitehead PR, Ward T, Collie RM (2007) Time for a change: applying the good lives model of rehabilitation to a high-risk violent offender. Int J Offender Ther Comp Crim 51(5):578–598. doi:10.1177/0306624X06296236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Willis GM, Grace RC (2008) The quality of community reintegration panning for child molestors: effects on sexual recidivism. Sex Abuse 20(2):218–240. doi:10.1177/1079063208318005

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Willis GM, Ward T (2010) Risk management versus the good lives model: the construction of better lives and the reduction of harm. In: Dréan-Rivette M, Evans M (Hrsg) Transnational criminology manual. Wolf Legal Publishing, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  82. Willis GM, Ward T, Levenson JS (in press) The Good Lives Model (GLM): an evaluation of GLM operationalization in North American treatment programs. Sex Abuse

  83. Willis GM, Yates PM, Gannon TA, Ward T (2012) How to Integrate the good lives model into treatment programs for sexual offending: an introduction and overview. Sex Abuse. doi:10.1177/1079063212452618

  84. Willis GM, Yates PM, Ward T (2012) Assessing attainment of good lives model primary goods. Paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand association of psychiatry. Psychology, and Law, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  85. Wormith JS, Gendreau P, Bonta J (2012) Deferring to clarity, parsimony, and evidence in reply to Ward, Yates, and Willis. Crim Justice Behav 39(1):111–120. doi:10.1177/0093854811426087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Yates PM, Prescott D, Ward T (2010) Applying the good lives and self-regulation models to sex offender treatment: a practical guide for clinicians. Safer Society Press, Brandon

    Google Scholar 

  87. Yates PM, Ward T (2008) Good lives, self-regulation, and risk management: an integrated model of sexual offender assessment and treatment. Sex Abuse Austr N Z 1(1):3–20

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Die Autoren versichern, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229, ER Maastricht, Niederlande

    Svenja Göbbels

  2. School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, EA 504, Wellington, Neuseeland

    Tony Ward PhD

  3. Deakin University, Deakin, Australien

    Gwenda M. Willis

Authors
  1. Svenja Göbbels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tony Ward PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gwenda M. Willis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Svenja Göbbels.

Additional information

Diese Arbeit beruht in Teilen auf dem Buchkapitel: Ward T, Göbbels S, Willis GM (2013) Offender rehabilitation: the construction of better lives and the reduction of risk. In: Carlson J (Hrsg) Encyclopaedia of criminology and criminal justice. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Göbbels, S., Ward, T. & Willis, G. Die Rehabilitation von Straftätern. Forens Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol 7, 122–132 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757-013-0210-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757-013-0210-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation