The women are not wrong: It is the approach that is debatable*
2009; Wiley; Volume: 8; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00548.x
ISSN1745-9133
AutoresKelly Taylor, Kelley Blanchette,
Tópico(s)Intimate Partner and Family Violence
ResumoCriminology & Public PolicyVolume 8, Issue 1 p. 221-229 The women are not wrong: It is the approach that is debatable* Kelly N. Taylor, Kelly N. Taylor Completed her doctorate in psychology at the University of Ottawa, in 2008. She is currently the director of Women Offender Research.Search for more papers by this authorKelley Blanchette, Kelley Blanchette Completed her doctorate in forensic psychology at Carleton University in January 2005. Her current substantive position is senior director, Correctional Research, at Correctional Service of Canada.Search for more papers by this author Kelly N. Taylor, Kelly N. Taylor Completed her doctorate in psychology at the University of Ottawa, in 2008. She is currently the director of Women Offender Research.Search for more papers by this authorKelley Blanchette, Kelley Blanchette Completed her doctorate in forensic psychology at Carleton University in January 2005. Her current substantive position is senior director, Correctional Research, at Correctional Service of Canada.Search for more papers by this author First published: 08 April 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00548.xCitations: 25 * The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Correctional Services of Canada. Direct correspondence to Kelley Blanchette, National Headquarters, Correctional Service of Canada, 340 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0P9 (e-mail: [email protected] and/or [email protected]). AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References Andrews, Don A., James A. Bonta, and J. Stephen Wormith 2004. Level of service/case management inventory: LS/CMI manual. Toronto , Ontario , Canada : MultiHealth Systems. Google Scholar Belknap, Joanne 2001. The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice, 2nd Edition. Florence , KY : Wadsworth. Google Scholar Belknap, Joanne and Kristi Holsinger 1998. An overview of delinquent girls: How theory and practice have failed and the need for innovative changes. In ( Ruth T. Zaplin, ed.), Female offenders: Critical perspectives and effective interventions. Gaithersburg , MD : Aspen. Google Scholar Benda, Brent B. 2005. Gender differences in life course theory of recidivism: A survival analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49: 325–342. 10.1177/0306624X04271194 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Blanchette, Kelley 2005. Field test of a gender-informed security reclassification scale for female offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carleton University. Google Scholar Blanchette, Kelley and Shelley L. Brown 2006. The assessment and treatment of women offenders: An integrative perspective. New York : Wiley. 10.1002/9780470713013 Google Scholar Bloom, Barbara E. 2000. Beyond recidivism: Perspectives on evaluation of programs for female offenders in community corrections. In ( Maeve McMahon, ed.), Assessment to assistance: Programs for women in community corrections. Arlington , VA : American Correctional Association. Google Scholar Bloom, Barbara, Barbara Owen, and Stephanie Covington 2003. Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles. Retrieved February 8, 2009 from http://nicic.org/pubs/2003/018017.pdf. Google Scholar Bonta, James A. 1996. Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In ( Alan T. Harland, ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply. Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage. Google Scholar Bonta, James A., Mia Dauvergne, and Tanya Rugge 2003. The reconviction rate of federal offenders. User Report 2003-02. Ottawa , Ontario : Solicitor General Canada. Google Scholar Chesney-Lind, Meda 2000. What to do about girls? Thinking about programs for young women. In ( Maeve McMahon, ed.), Assessment to assistance: Programs for women in community corrections. Lanham , MD : American Correctional Association. Web of Science®Google Scholar Chesney-Lind, Meda and Lisa Pasko 2003. The female offender: Girls, women and crime, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage. Google Scholar Daly, Kathleen 1992. Womens pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of law-breaking and problems of representations. Southern California Review of Law and Womens Studies, 2: 11–52. Google Scholar Daly, Kathleen 1994. Gender, crime, and punishment. New Haven , CT : Yale University Press. Google Scholar Gobeil, Renee and Meredith Barrett 2008. Rates of recidivism for women offenders. Research Report R-192. Ottawa : Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada. Google Scholar Hannah-Moffat, Kelly 2004. Gendering risk: At what cost? Negotiations of gender and risk in Canadian womens prisons. Feminism and Psychology, 14: 243–249. 10.1177/0959353504042178 Web of Science®Google Scholar Hannah-Moffat, Kelly 2006. Pandoras box: Risk/need and gender-responsive corrections. Criminology & Public Policy, 5: 183–192. 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00113.x Google Scholar Hardyman, Patricia L. and Patricia Van Voorhis 2004. Developing gender-specific classification systems for women offenders. Washington , DC : U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. Google Scholar Holsinger, Alexander M., Christopher T. Lowenkamp, and Edward J. Latessa 2003. Ethnicity, gender, and the level of service inventory-revised. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31: 309–320. 10.1016/S0047-2352(03)00025-4 Web of Science®Google Scholar Holtfreter, Kristy and Rhonda Cupp 2007. Gender and risk assessment: The empirical status of the LSI-R for women. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23: 363–382. 10.1177/1043986207309436 Google Scholar Holtfreter, Kristy, Michael D. Reisig, and Merry Morash 2004. Poverty, state capital, and recidivism among women offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 3: 185–208. 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2004.tb00035.x Google Scholar Langan, Patrick A. and David J. Levin 2002. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Retrieved September 25, 2005 from http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf. Special Report, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Google Scholar Maurutto, Paula and Kelly Hannah-Moffat 2007. Response to commentary: Cross-examining risk "knowledge." Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49: 543–550. 10.3138/cjccj.49.4.543 Web of Science®Google Scholar Owen, Barbara 1998. "In the mix": Struggle and survival in a womens prison. Albany : State University of New York Press. Google Scholar Poels, Veerle 2005. Risk assessment of recidivism of violent sexual female offenders. Wellington , New Zealand : Department of Corrections. Google Scholar Reisig, Michael D., Kristy Holtfreter, and Merry Morash 2006. Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23: 384–405. 10.1080/07418820600869152 Web of Science®Google Scholar Smith, Paula, Francis T. Cullen, and Edward J. Latessa Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy. This issue. PubMedGoogle Scholar Sorbello, Laura, Lynne Eccleston, Tony Ward, and Robin Jones 2002. Treatment needs of female offenders: A review. Australian Psychologist, 37: 196–205. 10.1080/00050060210001706876 Web of Science®Google Scholar Van Voorhis, Patricia 2007. The National Institute of Corrections Gender-Responsive Assessment Project. Paper presented at the International Community Corrections Association annual conference, San Diego, California. Google Scholar Van Voorhis, Patricia, Emily J. Salisbury, Emily Wright, and Ashley Bauman 2008. Achieving accurate pictures of risk and identifying gender responsive needs: Two new assessments for women offenders. Washington , DC : National Institute of Justice. Google Scholar Van Wormer, Katherine 2001. Counseling female offenders and victims: A strengths-based approach. New York : Springer. Google Scholar Wright, Emily, Emily J. Salisbury, and Patricia Van Voorhis 2007. Predicting prison misconducts of women offenders: The importance of gender-responsive needs. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23: 310–340. 10.1177/1043986207309595 Google Scholar Zaplin, Ruth T. 1998. Female offenders: A systems perspective. In ( Ruth T. Zaplin, ed.), Female offenders: Critical perspectives and effective interventions. Gaithersburg , MD : Aspen. Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume8, Issue1February 2009Pages 221-229 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)