This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (17) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hannah-Moffat, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Criminogenic needs and the transformative risk subject

Hybridizations of risk/need in penality

University of Toronto, Canada

This article examines the discrepancies between theories of risk and penality and emergent strategies of risk/need identification and management. Working back from the strategies themselves, I argue that the current generations of risk/need technologies are a significant departure from the pessimistic theoretical accounts of risk in criminal justice associated with the ‘new penology’ and ‘actuarial justice’. I argue that risk knowledges are fluid and flexible and capable of supporting a range of penal strategies. The evolution and meanings of risk in correctional assessment and classification are examined to show how understandings of risk have shifted from static to dynamic categorizations. I show how the concept of need is fused with risk, how particular conceptions of ‘need’ and ‘risk’ are situated in local penal narratives, how need reconstructs risk and revives correctional treatment as an efficient risk minimization strategy. I argue that strategic alignment of risk with narrowly defined intervenable needs contributes to the production of a transformative risk subject who unlike the ‘fixed or static risk subject’ is amenable to targeted therapeutic interventions. Newly formed risk/needs categorizations and subsequent management strategies give rise to a new politics of punishment, in which different risk/needs groupings compete for limited resources, discredit collective group claims to resources, redistribute responsibilities for risk/needs management and legitimate both inclusive and exclusionary penal strategies.

Key Words: classification • need • new penology • risk • theory

Punishment & Society, Vol. 7, No. 1, 29-51 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1462474505048132


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. A. Dell, C. J. Fillmore, and J. M. Kilty Looking Back 10 Years After the Arbour Inquiry: Ideology, Policy, Practice, and the Federal Female Prisoner The Prison Journal, September 1, 2009; 89(3): 286 - 308. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. A. Saum and M. L. Hiller Should Violent Offenders Be Excluded From Drug Court Participation?: An Examination of the Recidivism of Violent and Nonviolent Drug Court Participants Criminal Justice Review, September 1, 2008; 33(3): 291 - 307. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Hutchinson Countering catastrophic criminology: Reform, punishment and the modern liberal compromise Punishment Society, October 1, 2006; 8(4): 443 - 467. [Abstract] [PDF]