The Relationship between Human Needs and Criminogenic Needs
The Relationship between Human Needs and Criminogenic Needs
复制标题
人类需求与犯罪需求之间的关系
DOI：
10.1080/1068316031000112557
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Stewart
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Ward;C. Stewart
我们很高兴有机会回应Bonta和Andrews（2003年，本期）对我们探索人类需求和犯罪需求之间关系的论文（Ward和Stewart，2003年）的评论。我们担心的是，缺乏关于风险/需求模型的严肃的批判性辩论，以及该领域将成为正统的危险，就像几十年前与“什么都不起作用”运动有关的那样，具有限制性和问题性。我们认为，有真实的需要提供替代的康复模式，并严格审查临床实践与更广泛的社会和政治背景之间的关系。重要的是要成为经验主义者，而不是狭义上的实证主义者;理论的构建和评价是重要的，同时发现现象也是科学过程的重要组成部分。Bonta和Andrews对我们的论文提出了三个主要的批评，并认为我们（1）对风险/需求模型的证据打折扣，（2）在需求模型的发展中诉诸“直觉”信念而不是科学，并选择性地报告证据，（3）纯粹出于意识形态的理由而驳回风险/需求模型。在回答这些具体问题之前，我们首先要提出几点一般性意见。首先，邦塔和安德鲁斯似乎误解了我们论文的中心思想。我们的目标之一是澄清犯罪需求和人类需求之间的关系。我们从来没有打算声称犯罪动机需要的概念不重要或不必要。我们认为，个人追求的商品或目标部分取决于他们的根本利益和关注，即他们的基本需求。基本需求被有效地解释为从事某些活动的固有倾向，如果不满足这些活动，就会造成伤害或增加未来的伤害风险。能否以促进个人福祉的方式满足基本需求，关键取决于是否存在具体的内部（能力）和外部条件。内部条件是指心理特征，如技能，信仰，态度和价值观。外部条件是指促进发展的社会、文化和人际因素
We are delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the commentary by Bonta and Andrews (2003, this issue) on our paper exploring the relationship between human needs and criminogenic needs (Ward and Stewart, 2003). We are concerned about the absence of serious critical debate concerning the risk /need model and the danger that the field will harden into orthodoxy just as restrictive and problematic as that previously associated with the ‘‘nothing works’’ movement several decades ago. In our opinion, there is a real need to provide alternative rehabilitation models and also to critically scrutinize the relationship between clinical practice and the wider social and political context. It is important to be empirical but not empiricist in the narrow sense; theory construction and evaluation matter, and alongside the detection of phenomena are an essential part of the scientific process. Bonta and Andrews make three major criticisms of our paper and argue that we (1) discount the evidence for the risk /need model, (2) appeal to ‘‘intuitive’’ beliefs not science in the development of the needs model and selectively report evidence, and (3) dismiss the risk / need model on purely ideological grounds. Before replying to these specific points we would first like to make a couple of general observations. First, Bonta and Andrews appear to have misunderstood the central thrust of our paper. One of our stated aims was to clarify the relationships between criminogenic needs and human needs. It was never our intention to claim that the concept of criminogenic needs was unimportant or unnecessary. We argued that the goods or goals individuals seek are partially determined by their fundamental interests and concerns, that is, their basic needs. Basic needs are usefully construed as innate propensities to engage in certain activities that, if not met, result in harm or increased risk of harm in the future. Whether or not basic needs can be met in a manner that will promote an individual’s well-being depends crucially on the existence of specific internal (capabilities) and external conditions. Internal conditions refer to psychological characteristics such as skills, beliefs, attitudes and values. External conditions refer to social, cultural, and interpersonal factors that facilitate the development