证据导向的政策还是政策导向的证据?

D. Gadd
{"title":"证据导向的政策还是政策导向的证据?","authors":"D. Gadd","doi":"10.1177/1466802504044913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article critiques the move towards establishing standardized cognitive behavioural interventions for violent men within the National Probation Service of England and Wales. The article queries the persuasiveness of the research evidence informing this policy decision, and argues that in practice a narrow focus on cognition can detract from those aspects of masculinity that are implicated in the perpetration of domestic violence. Having first explored the limits of the evaluation research that has been conducted on cognitive behavioural programmes for domestic violence perpetrators in the UK, the article utilizes a case study to illustrate the complex challenges confronting those who wish to help violent men to change. In particular, the notion that denial is only implicated in mitigating responsibility for violence is exposed as unduly simplistic. The article concludes that without greater acknowledgement of the criminal justice system’s tendency to further brutalize violent offenders, court-mandated perpetrators will continue to expect probation interventions to provide ‘cures’, and become increasingly resistant to engage when no such cures are found.","PeriodicalId":10793,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice","volume":"4 1","pages":"173 - 197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-Led Policy or Policyled Evidence?\",\"authors\":\"D. Gadd\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1466802504044913\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article critiques the move towards establishing standardized cognitive behavioural interventions for violent men within the National Probation Service of England and Wales. The article queries the persuasiveness of the research evidence informing this policy decision, and argues that in practice a narrow focus on cognition can detract from those aspects of masculinity that are implicated in the perpetration of domestic violence. Having first explored the limits of the evaluation research that has been conducted on cognitive behavioural programmes for domestic violence perpetrators in the UK, the article utilizes a case study to illustrate the complex challenges confronting those who wish to help violent men to change. In particular, the notion that denial is only implicated in mitigating responsibility for violence is exposed as unduly simplistic. The article concludes that without greater acknowledgement of the criminal justice system’s tendency to further brutalize violent offenders, court-mandated perpetrators will continue to expect probation interventions to provide ‘cures’, and become increasingly resistant to engage when no such cures are found.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10793,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Criminal Justice\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"173 - 197\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Criminal Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1466802504044913\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1466802504044913","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

摘要

这篇文章批评了在英格兰和威尔士国家缓刑服务中心为暴力男性建立标准化认知行为干预的举措。这篇文章质疑了为这一政策决定提供信息的研究证据的说服力,并认为在实践中,对认知的狭隘关注可能会减损与家庭暴力犯罪有关的男性气概的那些方面。本文首先探讨了对英国家庭暴力施暴者认知行为项目进行的评估研究的局限性,并利用一个案例研究来说明那些希望帮助暴力男性改变的人所面临的复杂挑战。特别是,否认只涉及减轻暴力责任的观念被暴露为过分简单化。这篇文章的结论是,如果没有对刑事司法系统进一步残酷对待暴力罪犯的倾向有更大的认识,法院授权的犯罪者将继续期望缓刑干预提供“治疗”,并且在没有找到这种治疗方法时变得越来越抗拒参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evidence-Led Policy or Policyled Evidence?
This article critiques the move towards establishing standardized cognitive behavioural interventions for violent men within the National Probation Service of England and Wales. The article queries the persuasiveness of the research evidence informing this policy decision, and argues that in practice a narrow focus on cognition can detract from those aspects of masculinity that are implicated in the perpetration of domestic violence. Having first explored the limits of the evaluation research that has been conducted on cognitive behavioural programmes for domestic violence perpetrators in the UK, the article utilizes a case study to illustrate the complex challenges confronting those who wish to help violent men to change. In particular, the notion that denial is only implicated in mitigating responsibility for violence is exposed as unduly simplistic. The article concludes that without greater acknowledgement of the criminal justice system’s tendency to further brutalize violent offenders, court-mandated perpetrators will continue to expect probation interventions to provide ‘cures’, and become increasingly resistant to engage when no such cures are found.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Discursive Construction of Co-Ethnic Migration A Note on Optimal Allocation Mechanisms Annual Index Educating policymakers and setting the criminal justice policymaking agenda Facing inwards and outwards? Institutional racism, race equality and the role of Black and Asian professional associations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1